Technical Specification of Foshan Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project

I. Project Overview

1.1 Background and Significance

The Foshan Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project represents a landmark initiative in China's water environment management, addressing critical challenges in water pollution control and ecological restoration. As part of the Pearl River Delta region, Foshan has experienced rapid urbanization and industrialization over recent decades, leading to severe degradation of its water systems (3). The Guipan water system, consisting of the main Guipan River and its tributaries, is particularly important as it flows through the urban centers of Daliang, Lunjiao, and Leliu, directly affecting the water environment quality of Shunde District's central area (1).

The project area encompasses 57 main rivers and tributaries within a service area of 93.91 square kilometers, covering 21 villages and serving approximately 450,000 residents (1). The water system's ecological degradation was severe: over 90% of the 56 tributaries had water quality below Grade V (the lowest classification), with 7 tributaries experiencing severe blackening and odor problems, indicating complete loss of natural purification capacity (1).

The comprehensive treatment of the Guipan water system is of strategic significance for several reasons:

Environmental Improvement: Restoring water quality to support ecological functions and enhance the living environment for urban residents.
Urban Development: Creating a sustainable water environment that supports Foshan's transformation into a high-quality livable city.
Ecological Restoration: Rebuilding aquatic ecosystems and biodiversity in an urbanized area.
Model Demonstration: Serving as a national model for integrated water system management in rapidly urbanizing regions (13).

1.2 Project Scale and Major Components

The Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project is divided into two major components: the "Guipan River Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project" and the "Lunjiao River Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project," with a total investment of 2.558 billion yuan (including land acquisition and resettlement costs related to sewage interception works) (1).

The project includes 129 sub-projects covering various aspects of water environment management, including:

Sewage Interception: Construction of new sewage pipelines and repair of existing sewage networks to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into rivers (1).
Sediment Cleaning: Removal of polluted sediments from riverbeds to reduce internal pollution sources (1).
Sewage Pumping Stations: Construction of new facilities and upgrading of existing ones to improve wastewater collection and transportation efficiency.
Gate and Pumping Stations: Hydraulic structures for water level control, flood prevention, and water circulation (19).
Ecological Restoration: Implementation of ecological engineering measures to enhance water self-purification capacity.
Initial Rainwater Storage Tanks: Facilities to collect and treat the first flush of stormwater, which typically contains high pollutant concentrations.
Water Affairs Information System: Establishment of an intelligent monitoring and management platform for real-time tracking of water quality and system performance (1).

The project's key geographical scope includes:

Guipan Main River: From Huangmacong Sluice in Leliu Street to Guipan Sea Water Conservancy Hub in Daliang Street, with a total length of 21.5 kilometers and river width ranging from 80-160 meters (1).
Lunjiao River System: Including the main Lunjiao River and its tributaries such as Shangcun Yong, Yunlu Chujie Yong, and Longtian Yong (26).
Daliang River System: Including Daliang River and its tributaries such as Heyi Yong, Yongfeng Industrial Zone Wuming Yong, Sicheng Yong, Liuchawei Yong, Xinsong Yong, Gujian Yong, Xiandong Yong, Honggang Yong, and Shiluo Yong (26).

1.3 Treatment Objectives and Technical Approach

The primary treatment objectives for the Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project are:

Water Quality Standards: Achieve Grade IV water quality (90% of the time and space) for Guipan Sea and Lunjiao River, Grade V water quality (90% of the time and space) for Daliang River, and eliminate black and odorous water in other tributaries with water quality basically meeting Grade V standards (75% of the time and space) (1).
Ecological Restoration: Restore ecological functions and biodiversity in the water system, creating sustainable aquatic ecosystems.
Water System Activation: Improve water circulation and self-purification capacity through hydraulic engineering measures.

The project adopts a systematic technical approach with the following key elements:

Pollution Source Control: Implement comprehensive measures to identify and eliminate pollution sources through sewage interception and industrial pollution control (1).
Internal Pollution Treatment: Use microbial flora to adjust water nutrient balance, restore ecological systems in black and odorous water bodies, and fundamentally solve nutrient imbalance problems (1).
Ecological Restoration: Apply biological treatment technologies such as river bottom mud bio-oxidation, river aeration, and water body bio-ecological restoration to improve water self-purification capacity (1).
Water Circulation Activation: Construct pumping stations to introduce clean water into rivers, promote water flow, and utilize natural factors such as tides to enhance water circulation (1).
Intelligent Monitoring and Management: Establish a comprehensive information system for real-time monitoring and data analysis to support scientific decision-making and management (1).

The project follows the principle of "unified leadership, unified platform, unified implementation, unified treatment," treating the entire water system as an integrated unit rather than isolated parts. This approach ensures comprehensive and coordinated solutions to complex water environment challenges (1).

II. Key Technical Applications and Case Studies

2.1 Sewage Interception Network Technology

2.1.1 Technical Principles and Process Characteristics

Sewage interception network construction forms the core of the Guipan water system treatment project, aiming to collect domestic sewage and industrial wastewater along riverbanks and transport them to wastewater treatment plants for proper treatment, thereby controlling pollution sources at their origin.

Technical Principles:

Establish intercepting pipelines along riverbanks to collect sewage that would otherwise flow directly into rivers.
Utilize gravity flow or pumping stations to transport intercepted sewage to treatment facilities, achieving separation of sewage and rainwater (1).
Design pipeline networks based on comprehensive analysis of topography, hydrology, and pollution source distribution.

Process Characteristics:

Comprehensive Coverage: The design considers all potential pollution sources along riverbanks to ensure no pollution point is missed.
Local Adaptation: Pipeline materials, diameters, and laying methods are tailored to local topographic, geological, and pollution source conditions.
System Integration: The interception network integrates with wastewater treatment plants, pumping stations, and other infrastructure to form a complete sewage collection and treatment system.
Phased Implementation: The project is divided into multiple sub-projects for phased implementation, ensuring engineering quality and effectiveness while managing construction impacts (1).

2.1.2 Case Study: Daliang Yinchong River Sewage Interception Project

The Daliang Yinchong River Sewage Interception Project serves as a representative case study within the larger Guipan water system treatment initiative.

Project Overview:

Located in Daliang Street, the Yinchong River is surrounded by densely populated residential and commercial areas, resulting in severe river pollution.
The total length of the interception pipeline is 628 meters, collecting domestic sewage along the riverbank and discharging it into the existing sewage pipeline on Xingui Road, which leads to the Damen Wastewater Treatment Plant (1).

Implementation Process:

Pre-construction Survey: Detailed investigation of pollution sources along the river to determine pipeline alignment and connection points.
Design Optimization: Pipeline gradient and diameter were optimized based on topographic and geological conditions to ensure gravity flow without the need for additional pumping.
Construction Organization: The project adopted segmented construction to minimize impacts on residents and traffic. One lane was occupied during construction while maintaining traffic flow on the other lane.
Quality Control: Stringent quality control measures were implemented for pipeline joints to ensure watertightness. After pipeline laying, water tightness tests were conducted to verify sealing performance.
Restoration and Acceptance: After construction, road surfaces and riverbanks were restored to their original condition, and relevant departments conducted final acceptance inspections (1).

The project was completed in June 2018 and successfully solved the problem of direct sewage discharge into the Yinchong River, laying the foundation for subsequent water quality improvement in the river (16).

2.1.3 Comparative Analysis with International Cases

A comparison with international sewage interception projects provides valuable insights into the technical characteristics and performance of the Guipan water system interception network.

Case Study: Chicago Combined Sewer Overflow Control (USA)

The City of Chicago faced similar challenges with combined sewer systems that overflowed during heavy rains, discharging untreated sewage into water bodies. The city implemented several innovative solutions:

Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP): A massive underground tunnel system (211 km long, 45-91m deep) combined with storage reservoirs (total capacity 155 million m³) to capture overflow sewage during storms (9).
Rain Barrel Program: Encouraged residents to install rain barrels to collect rooftop rainwater, reducing stormwater runoff and alleviating pressure on the sewer system (9).
Green Alley Program: Transformed traditional impermeable alleyways into permeable surfaces that absorb rainwater, reducing runoff and pollution (9).

Comparison with Guipan Project:

Comparison Factor	Guipan Sewage Interception	Chicago Combined Sewer Control
Project Scale	74,865 meters of interception pipelines for 13 rivers (28)	8,050 km of combined sewers with 640 overflow points (9)
Technical Approach	Traditional gravity flow and pressure pipelines with phased implementation	Combination of underground tunnels, storage reservoirs, green infrastructure, and public participation
Pollution Control Focus	Primarily focused on domestic sewage interception	Comprehensive control of combined sewer overflows, including stormwater management
Implementation Period	Two years construction, three years maintenance (27)	Multi-decade implementation (1972-present) with multiple phases
Monitoring and Management	Water affairs information system for real-time monitoring (1)	Advanced computer modeling and integrated management system
Cost-Effectiveness	2.558 billion yuan total investment (1)	TARP alone cost approximately $4.5 billion (USD)

Key Differences:

The Guipan project focuses primarily on domestic sewage interception, while Chicago addresses combined sewer overflows that mix sewage and stormwater.
Chicago employs a diverse range of approaches including green infrastructure and public participation, whereas Guipan relies more heavily on traditional engineering solutions.
The scale of Chicago's TARP project far exceeds the Guipan interception network in terms of engineering complexity and investment, reflecting differences in project scope and objectives.

Advantages of Guipan Approach:

Phased implementation allows for more flexible adaptation to local conditions and budget constraints.
Focus on domestic sewage interception addresses the most immediate pollution source in the region.
Localized design and construction minimize environmental and social disruption during implementation.

Limitations of Guipan Approach:

Less emphasis on stormwater management and combined sewer overflow control, which may become more important as climate change leads to more extreme rainfall events.
Limited integration of green infrastructure and public participation compared to international best practices.

2.2 River Dredging Technology

2.2.1 Technical Principles and Process Characteristics

River dredging is a critical component of the Guipan water system treatment project, involving the removal of accumulated sediment from riverbeds to reduce internal pollution sources and improve water quality and ecological conditions.

Technical Principles:

Use mechanical or hydraulic methods to remove accumulated sediment, garbage, and other pollutants from riverbeds.
Reduce the release of organic matter, heavy metals, and other pollutants from sediment into water bodies, enhancing water self-purification capacity.
Improve river hydraulics by increasing water storage capacity and flow efficiency, enhancing flood control capabilities (1).

Process Characteristics:

Environmental Protection Dredging: Use ecological dredging methods to minimize disturbance to water bodies and ecosystems.
Precision Positioning: Determine dredging scope and depth through pre-construction surveys and measurements to ensure effective removal of polluted sediments while preserving beneficial layers.
Sediment Treatment: Implement specialized processes for dewatering, stabilization, and solidification of dredged sediments to achieve harmless treatment and resource utilization.
Phased Implementation: Adopt section-by-section and phase-by-phase dredging according to river characteristics and site conditions, ensuring construction safety and effectiveness (24).

2.2.2 Case Study: San'yi Yong River Dredging Project

The San'yi Yong River Dredging Project serves as a representative case study of the river dredging component in the Guipan water system treatment initiative.

Project Overview:

San'yi Yong is a tributary of the Guipan water system located in Daliang Street. Due to long-term sediment accumulation, the river bottom had significant thickness of polluted sediments, leading to severe water blackening and odor problems.
The project divided the river into two construction sections: SYC1+920~SYC2+370 (Section 1) and SYC2+370~SYC2+610 (Section 2) (1).

Implementation Process:

Pre-construction Survey: Through measurement and sampling analysis, determined the scope and depth of dredging. Surveys revealed significant variations in sediment thickness and pollution levels.
Construction Preparation: Built temporary cofferdams to isolate construction sections from the rest of the river, reducing impacts on surrounding water bodies. Prepared dredging equipment and transportation tools.
Dredging Construction: Adopted ecological dredging vessels for underwater dredging, floating excavators, and manual dredging (hydraulic dredging) methods. Operation speed was controlled to minimize water disturbance.
Sediment Transportation: Dredged sediments were transported via pipelines or vehicles to designated dewatering and treatment facilities.
Sediment Treatment: The sediments underwent dewatering and solidification treatment to meet harmlessness standards before further disposal or reuse.
Quality Control: Regularly monitored dredging depth and sediment quality to ensure design requirements were met. After dredging, underwater topographic surveys were conducted to verify results.
Restoration and Acceptance: Temporary cofferdams were removed, river conditions were restored, and relevant departments conducted final acceptance inspections (1).

This project was completed in February 2018, removing approximately 60,985 cubic meters of sediment and significantly improving water quality and ecological conditions in San'yi Yong (1).

2.2.3 Comparative Analysis with International Cases

A comparison with international river dredging and sediment treatment projects provides valuable context for evaluating the technical approaches used in the Guipan water system treatment.

Case Study: Chicago River Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (USA)

The Chicago River Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) is one of the world's largest underground water management projects, addressing combined sewer overflows and improving water quality:

Deep Tunnel System: A network of tunnels (211 km long) and storage reservoirs (total capacity 155 million m³) designed to capture overflow sewage during storms (9).
Sediment Management: Specialized systems for handling sediments collected in tunnels and reservoirs, including mechanical and hydraulic separation, dewatering, and disposal.
Integrated Approach: Combined with wastewater treatment plant upgrades, green infrastructure, and public education programs for comprehensive water quality improvement (9).

Comparison with Guipan Project:

Comparison Factor	Guipan River Dredging	Chicago TARP Project
Project Scale	Approximately 60,985 cubic meters of sediment removed from a single river (1)	Massive underground system with 211 km of tunnels and 155 million m³ storage capacity (9)
Technical Approach	Ecological dredging vessels, floating excavators, manual hydraulic dredging	Deep tunnel construction, advanced sediment separation and dewatering technologies
Sediment Treatment	Dewatering and solidification with resource utilization (ecological embankment construction) (24)	Dewatering, stabilization, and landfilling or beneficial reuse
Environmental Protection	Minimized water disturbance, but cofferdams still caused some ecological impact	Tunnel construction caused significant initial disruption, but long-term environmental benefits
Implementation Period	Single-phase project completed in approximately 6 months	Multi-decade implementation with multiple phases
Cost-Effectiveness	Relatively low cost due to smaller scale and simpler technology	High cost due to complex engineering and deep underground construction

Key Differences:

The scale and complexity of the Chicago TARP project far exceed the Guipan dredging projects, reflecting different project objectives and site conditions.
Chicago's approach focuses on stormwater and sewage management in an urbanized area, while Guipan's dredging primarily targets accumulated sediment in smaller rivers.
Guipan emphasizes ecological dredging methods to minimize environmental impact, whereas TARP focuses on engineering solutions for pollution prevention.

Advantages of Guipan Approach:

Lower capital investment and shorter construction period make it more feasible for localized river improvement.
Ecological dredging methods minimize disturbance to existing aquatic ecosystems.
Resource utilization of dredged materials (e.g., for ecological embankments) aligns with sustainable development principles (24).

Limitations of Guipan Approach:

Shorter-term benefits compared to comprehensive systems like TARP, which provide long-term pollution prevention.
Limited ability to address combined sewer overflows or stormwater pollution, which are becoming increasingly important in urban areas.
Higher maintenance requirements over time as sediments gradually accumulate again.

2.3 Ecological Restoration Technology

2.3.1 Technical Principles and Process Characteristics

Ecological restoration forms a critical component of the Guipan water system treatment project, aiming to rebuild aquatic ecosystems and enhance water self-purification capacity through biological and ecological engineering methods.

Technical Principles:

Utilize aquatic plants, microorganisms, and aquatic animals to absorb, transform, and decompose pollutants in water bodies.
Reconstruct complete aquatic food chains and ecological systems to establish self-sustaining and resilient water environments.
Improve water quality and ecological functions by enhancing natural purification processes and creating suitable habitats for aquatic organisms (1).

Process Characteristics:

Local Adaptation: Select plant and animal species based on local water quality, depth, substrate conditions, and climate.
System Design: Integrate aquatic plants, animals, and microorganisms into a cohesive ecological system with complementary functions.
Landscape Integration: Combine ecological restoration with landscape design to enhance aesthetic value and recreational functions of water bodies.
Long-term Management: Establish comprehensive long-term management mechanisms for regular maintenance and adjustment of ecological systems to ensure sustained benefits (1).

2.3.2 Case Study: Daliang River Ecological Restoration Project

The Daliang River Ecological Restoration Project serves as a representative case study of the ecological restoration component in the Guipan water system treatment initiative.

Project Background:

Daliang River, a major tributary of the Guipan water system, suffered from severe pollution and ecological degradation, resulting in blackening and odor problems.
Previous pollution sources had been largely controlled through sewage interception and river dredging, creating conditions for ecological restoration (1).

Implementation Process:

Water Quality Improvement: Pre-treatment through sewage interception and sediment dredging to reduce external and internal pollution sources.
Aquatic Vegetation Restoration:
- Shallow water areas: planted with emergent aquatic plants such as reed (Phragmites australis) and cattail (Typha latifolia).
- Deep water areas: planted with floating-leaved plants such as water lily (Nymphaea spp.) and water shield (Brasenia schreberi).
- Deepest areas: planted with submerged plants such as tape grass (Vallisneria spiralis) and hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata).
Aquatic Animal Introduction:
- Filter-feeding fish (silver carp, Hypophthalmichthys molitrix; bighead carp, Aristichthys nobilis) introduced to control algal blooms.
- Benthic animals (clams, Corbicula fluminea; snails, Bellamya aeruginosa) introduced to promote sediment purification.
Microbial Enhancement: Application of high-efficiency microbial agents to enhance organic matter decomposition and nutrient cycling.
Aeration and Oxygenation: Installation of aeration devices in low-flow areas to increase dissolved oxygen levels and promote aerobic microbial activity.
Landscape Design: Creation of hydrophilic platforms, recreational trails, and viewing areas along riverbanks, integrating ecological functions with aesthetic and recreational values (1).

The project achieved significant improvements in water quality and ecological conditions, with Daliang River showing visible reductions in blackening and odor, increased biodiversity, and enhanced aesthetic value. The restored river ecosystem began to exhibit self-purification capacity, reducing dependence on external treatment measures.

2.3.3 Comparative Analysis with International Cases

A comparison with international ecological restoration projects provides valuable context for evaluating the technical approaches used in the Guipan water system treatment.

Case Study: Charles River Restoration (Boston, USA)

The Charles River in Massachusetts experienced severe pollution and ecological degradation due to urbanization and industrialization. The restoration project implemented several innovative approaches:

River Morphology Restoration: Restored the river's natural meandering shape from a straightened channel, creating diverse habitats and reducing erosion (5).
Floodplain and Wetland Restoration: Reconstructed approximately 12.14 hectares of irregular basins and 8.09 hectares of wetlands to absorb floodwaters and improve water quality (5).
Tidal Gate Installation: Installed a tidal gate at the river's mouth to control flooding and enhance basin flushing (5).
Park System Integration: Developed a system of linear parks along the river, creating a green corridor through the city (5).

Comparison with Guipan Project:

Comparison Factor	Guipan Ecological Restoration	Charles River Restoration
Project Scale	Multiple river sections within the Guipan system	192 km river with extensive floodplain and wetland restoration
Technical Approach	Aquatic plant and animal introduction, microbial enhancement, aeration	River morphology restoration, floodplain/wetland creation, tidal management
Design Philosophy	Focus on water quality improvement and basic ecological functions	Integration of flood control, water quality, recreation, and urban planning
Implementation Period	Phased implementation within the broader water system treatment	Multi-decade effort with continuous adaptation
Ecological Integration	Primarily focused on aquatic ecosystem restoration	Comprehensive landscape integration with urban planning
Monitoring and Management	Water affairs information system for monitoring	Long-term monitoring program with adaptive management

Key Differences:

The Charles River project emphasized river morphology restoration and floodplain/wetland creation, whereas Guipan focuses more on direct biological restoration of water bodies.
The Charles River project integrated ecological restoration with urban planning and recreational uses to a greater extent than the Guipan project.
Guipan's approach is more focused on addressing immediate pollution issues through biological means, while the Charles River project took a more holistic, long-term approach to river ecosystem health.

Advantages of Guipan Approach:

Faster implementation time and more immediate water quality improvements.
Lower initial investment due to focus on biological rather than large-scale hydraulic engineering.
Strong emphasis on water quality improvement through multiple complementary biological mechanisms.

Limitations of Guipan Approach:

Less emphasis on river morphology and hydrological processes, which are important for long-term ecosystem stability.
Limited integration with urban planning and social aspects of river management.
Higher ongoing management requirements compared to more naturally functioning systems.

2.4 Water Circulation Activation Technology

2.4.1 Technical Principles and Process Characteristics

Water circulation activation represents an innovative technical approach in the Guipan water system treatment project, aiming to enhance water flow and exchange through hydraulic engineering measures, thereby improving water self-purification capacity and ecological functions.

Technical Principles:

Use pumps, gates, and other hydraulic structures to modify water flow patterns, increase water mobility and exchange frequency.
Enhance dissolved oxygen content through increased turbulence and surface contact, promoting pollutant degradation and water self-purification.
Utilize natural factors such as tides and rainfall patterns to optimize water circulation and reduce energy consumption (1).

Process Characteristics:

System Analysis: Use hydrodynamic modeling to analyze water flow characteristics and water quality changes, determining optimal water circulation strategies.
Multi-point Control: Install hydraulic structures at key nodes in the water system to form a network of circulation control points.
Intelligent Control: Adopt intelligent control systems that automatically adjust hydraulic structures based on real-time data of water level, water quality, and flow rate.
Tidal Utilization: Take advantage of tidal patterns to introduce tidal water for flushing rivers during appropriate periods, improving water exchange efficiency (23).

2.4.2 Case Study: Guipan Water Overpass Project

The Guipan Water Overpass Project stands as a flagship example of water circulation activation technology in the Guipan water system treatment initiative. As the first water overpass project in Guangdong Province, it represents a significant innovation in hydraulic engineering and water system management.

Project Overview:

Total investment: Approximately 135 million yuan.
Major components: New Guipan Sea artificial river inverted siphon culvert, water connection between Guipan Lake and Happy Coast artificial lake, and comprehensive water environment improvement in the area (19).
Hydraulic design: The inverted siphon culvert has a design flow capacity of 180 cubic meters per second, with a gate chamber section featuring 3 holes each 9.0 meters wide, and a culvert section total length of 79.0 meters.
Water connection channel: Designed with a water surface width of 54 meters, using a trapezoidal cross-section excavation canal to accommodate cultural tourism boat traffic and meet landscape requirements (19).

Implementation Process:

Hydraulic Modeling: Extensive hydrodynamic modeling was conducted to optimize the design of the inverted siphon and water connection channel, ensuring efficient water flow and minimal energy consumption.
Inverted Siphon Construction: The inverted siphon culvert was constructed using reinforced concrete, with special attention to waterproofing and structural stability given its underwater location.
Water Connection Channel: The channel was excavated to connect Guipan Lake and Happy Coast artificial lake, with consideration given to boat navigation safety and landscape aesthetics.
Intelligent Control System: Installation of automated control systems for monitoring and adjusting water levels, flows, and quality in real-time.
Landscape Integration: The project incorporated landscape design elements to integrate the hydraulic infrastructure with the surrounding environment, enhancing both functionality and aesthetics.
Testing and Commissioning: Extensive testing was conducted to ensure the system operated as designed, with adjustments made based on performance data.

The project was officially put into operation on August 28, 2024, with the main structure completed and the entire project expected to be finished by the Spring Festival in 2025. It successfully connects the Shunfengshan Park and Happy Coast PLUS scenic areas, creating a water-land integrated transportation network while improving the regional water environment (19).

2.4.3 Comparative Analysis with International Cases

A comparison with international water circulation and activation projects provides valuable context for evaluating the technical approaches used in the Guipan water system treatment.

Case Study: "Room for the River" Project (Netherlands)

The "Room for the River" project in the Netherlands represents a comprehensive approach to river management that combines flood protection, ecological restoration, and urban development:

Levee Relocation: The Nieuwegein Levee Relocation project moved the northern levee back 350 meters and created new tributary channels to reduce peak water levels by 34 cm during floods (7).
Urban Integration: Integrated with urban planning for the northern city area, including bridge construction, roads, recreation facilities, housing, and real estate development (7).
Floodplain Restoration: Restored floodplain areas to their natural state, creating diverse habitats and improving water retention capacity.
Multi-objective Design: Projects were designed to simultaneously address flood safety, ecological enhancement, and urban development objectives (7).

Comparison with Guipan Project:

Comparison Factor	Guipan Water Circulation	Netherlands "Room for the River"
Project Scale	Single water overpass structure connecting two lakes (19)	Multiple projects across 30+ cities with large-scale landscape transformation
Technical Approach	Inverted siphon culvert and water connection channel	Levee relocation, floodplain restoration, multi-channel systems
Design Philosophy	Focus on water environment improvement and landscape integration	Integration of flood safety, ecological restoration, and urban development
Implementation Period	Approximately 2 years construction time (19)	Multi-year implementation with phased approach
Environmental Impact	Positive impact on local water quality and ecosystem	Large-scale ecological benefits across entire river system
Integration with Urban Planning	Limited to specific area around Guipan Lake and Happy Coast	Comprehensive integration with urban development and regional planning

Key Differences:

The Dutch project emphasizes flood safety and ecological restoration on a large scale, while Guipan focuses more on water environment improvement and landscape integration in a specific area.
The Dutch approach involves significant landscape transformation and urban planning integration, whereas Guipan's project is more focused on hydraulic engineering and localized environmental benefits.
Guipan's project uses an inverted siphon structure to maintain water flow while allowing land use above, whereas Dutch projects often involve physical relocation of infrastructure and land use changes.

Advantages of Guipan Approach:

Lower cost and shorter construction period due to more targeted intervention.
Better integration with specific local tourism and landscape objectives.
Innovative use of inverted siphon technology to maintain water connectivity while accommodating land use needs.

Limitations of Guipan Approach:

Limited impact on the broader water system compared to comprehensive approaches like "Room for the River."
Less emphasis on flood risk management and climate adaptation.
Limited integration with broader urban planning and regional development strategies.

III. Operational Procedures and Maintenance Strategies

3.1 Daily Operation and Monitoring Protocols

The Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project employs comprehensive operational procedures and monitoring protocols to ensure the safe, efficient, and sustainable functioning of the water system. These protocols are designed to maintain optimal performance while minimizing environmental impacts.

3.1.1 Operational Control Strategies

The primary operational control strategies include:

Flow Management: The water system is operated to maintain flow rates within design parameters, with adjustments made based on seasonal variations in water production and tidal conditions. Specialized software models are used to predict flow patterns and optimize operations (1).
Pumping Station Operations: The three major pumping stations are operated according to a coordinated schedule to ensure continuous flow through the system while minimizing energy consumption. Automated controls adjust pump speeds based on real-time data (1).
Tide Synchronization: The operational schedule is synchronized with tidal cycles to optimize water exchange and minimize the potential for short-circuiting. This involves careful monitoring of tide forecasts and adjusting gate operations accordingly (23).
Emergency Diversion Protocols: Clear procedures are in place for activating emergency diversion facilities in the event of equipment failure, maintenance requirements, or environmental emergencies. These protocols ensure continuous operation and prevent potential environmental incidents (1).
Integrated Water Quality Management: Water quality parameters are monitored in real-time, with operational adjustments made to address any deviations from target standards. This includes adjusting flow rates, activating additional treatment processes, or implementing targeted pollution control measures (1).

3.1.2 Monitoring Systems and Parameters

The comprehensive monitoring system includes multiple components for tracking water quality, quantity, and ecological conditions:

Flow Monitoring: Continuous monitoring of flow rates at key points throughout the system, including at each pumping station and along the main trunk canal. Ultrasonic flow meters and pressure sensors provide real-time data (1).
Water Quality Monitoring: Regular sampling and analysis of parameters including: Monitoring locations include upstream and downstream of critical points such as sewage outfalls, confluences, and sensitive ecological areas

Monitoring locations include upstream and downstream of critical points such as sewage outfalls, confluences, and sensitive ecological areas (1).

Physical: Temperature, turbidity, color, odor
Chemical: pH, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD)
Nutrients: Ammonia nitrogen, total nitrogen, total phosphorus
Heavy metals: Mercury, cadmium, lead, chromium
Microbiological: Total coliforms, Escherichia coli

Structural Monitoring: Periodic inspections of pipelines, pumping stations, gates, and other infrastructure using CCTV cameras, acoustic sensors, and visual inspections. This ensures early detection of potential issues such as leaks, corrosion, or structural damage (1).
Ecological Monitoring: Assessment of biological indicators including:
- Aquatic plant health and coverage
- Fish populations and diversity
- Macroinvertebrate communities (used as bioindicators of water quality)
- Algal blooms and other ecological indicators (1).
Weather and Climate Monitoring: Collection of data on rainfall, temperature, humidity, and wind patterns to predict potential impacts on the water system and adjust operations accordingly. This includes integration with regional weather forecasting services (1).

3.1.3 Case Study: Comparison with International Monitoring Practices

A comparison with the monitoring practices of the Charles River Restoration project in Boston, USA, provides valuable insights into international approaches to water system monitoring:

Charles River Monitoring System:

Comprehensive Data Collection: Extensive network of monitoring stations collecting data on water quality, flow rates, and ecological indicators.
Public Access to Data: Real-time monitoring data made available to the public through interactive maps and dashboards.
Citizen Science Programs: Involvement of local residents in water quality monitoring through organized sampling programs.
Long-term Monitoring: Established long-term monitoring program to track ecosystem recovery and inform adaptive management strategies (5).

Comparison with Guipan Project:

Comparison Factor	Guipan Monitoring System	Charles River Monitoring System
Monitoring Frequency	Regular sampling with automated sensors for key parameters	Continuous monitoring at strategic locations with public data access
Parameter Selection	Focus on pollution indicators (BOD, COD, nutrients, heavy metals)	Comprehensive including physical, chemical, biological, and ecological indicators
Data Management	Centralized database with analysis tools for operational decision-making	Open data platform with public access and visualization tools
Public Involvement	Limited public access to data	Active citizen science programs and public engagement
Monitoring Duration	Project-based with transition to long-term management	Multi-decade commitment to long-term monitoring
Technology Integration	Automated sensors and data loggers	Advanced modeling, remote sensing, and citizen science integration

Key Differences:

The Charles River system emphasizes public engagement and data transparency, whereas Guipan's monitoring is primarily for operational management.
Guipan's monitoring focuses more on pollution indicators, while Charles River includes broader ecological indicators.
Charles River has a stronger emphasis on long-term monitoring for adaptive management, while Guipan's approach is more project-focused.

Advantages of Guipan Approach:

Clear focus on parameters directly related to pollution control and water quality improvement.
Strong integration with operational decision-making for immediate system optimization.
Cost-effective approach tailored to specific local conditions and priorities.

Limitations of Guipan Approach:

Limited public engagement and data transparency may reduce community awareness and support.
Less emphasis on long-term ecological monitoring that could inform adaptive management strategies.
Less integration with emerging technologies such as remote sensing and citizen science.

3.2 Preventive Maintenance and Rehabilitation Programs

The Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project implements comprehensive preventive maintenance and rehabilitation programs to ensure the long-term performance and service life of infrastructure and ecological systems.

3.2.1 Preventive Maintenance Strategies

The primary preventive maintenance strategies include:

Scheduled Inspections: Regular inspections of all components according to a predefined schedule:
- Daily: Pumping stations, control systems, and critical infrastructure
- Weekly: Valves, gates, and mechanical equipment
- Monthly: Pipelines, channels, and less critical structures
- Seasonal: Preparation for flood seasons and drought periods
- Annual: Comprehensive system-wide inspections (1).
Cleaning Programs: Regular removal of debris, sediment, and accumulated materials from:
- Pipelines and channels to prevent blockages and maintain flow capacity
- Intake screens and filters to ensure proper functioning
- Aeration devices and treatment units to maintain efficiency
- Monitoring equipment to ensure accurate data collection (1).
Corrosion Control: Implementation of measures to prevent and mitigate corrosion in metal components:
- Protective coatings and linings
- Cathodic protection systems for submerged structures
- Regular inspections for signs of corrosion
- Replacement of corroded components as needed (1).
Equipment Maintenance: Scheduled servicing of mechanical and electrical equipment including:
- Lubrication and adjustment of moving parts
- Replacement of worn components
- Calibration of instruments and controls
- Testing of backup power systems
- Software updates and system maintenance for control systems (1).
Vegetation Management: Control of vegetation growth that could interfere with infrastructure or water flow:
- Removal of invasive plant species
- Pruning of trees and shrubs near power lines and structures
- Maintenance of buffer zones around water bodies
- Management of aquatic vegetation to prevent excessive growth (1).

3.2.2 Rehabilitation Approaches

The project employs a range of rehabilitation approaches based on the specific needs of each system component:

Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) Lining: Used for rehabilitation of pipelines with structural deterioration but intact external conditions. This involves inserting a resin-impregnated liner into the existing pipe, inflating it to conform to the host pipe, and curing it to form a new structural lining (1).
Spiral Wound Lining: Employed for sections where the pipeline geometry or access limitations make CIPP impractical. This method uses a continuous plastic strip that is spirally wound inside the existing pipe to form a new structural liner (1).
Spot Repairs: Targeted repairs using specialized techniques for localized damage or defects, including:
- Patch repairs for small holes or cracks
- Sleeve repairs for longer sections of damage
- Grouting for voids or soil settlement around pipes (1).
Full Replacement: Complete replacement of pipeline sections where rehabilitation is not economically or technically feasible. This may involve trenchless techniques such as horizontal directional drilling or traditional open-cut methods (1).
Ecological Restoration Upgrades: Enhancement of ecological systems that have degraded over time:
- Replacement of non-native or poorly performing plant species
- Reintroduction of key animal species
- Enhancement of habitat complexity
- Modification of flow regimes to better support ecological needs (1).
Technology Upgrades: Replacement or enhancement of aging monitoring and control systems with newer, more efficient technologies:
- Upgrading to smart sensors and real-time monitoring
- Implementing advanced data analytics and predictive maintenance
- Enhancing automation and remote control capabilities (1).

3.2.3 Case Study: Comparison with International Maintenance Programs

A comparison with the maintenance programs of the Chicago Tunnel and Reservoir Plan (TARP) provides valuable insights into international approaches to large-scale water infrastructure maintenance:

Chicago TARP Maintenance Program:

Comprehensive Inspection Protocols: Regular inspections of tunnels and reservoirs using specialized equipment including remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) and laser scanning.
Predictive Maintenance: Use of advanced analytics and modeling to predict maintenance needs and optimize schedules.
Public-Private Partnership: Collaboration with private sector partners for specialized maintenance services and expertise.
Comprehensive Documentation: Detailed records of all maintenance activities and infrastructure conditions stored in a centralized database (9).

Comparison with Guipan Project:

Comparison Factor	Guipan Maintenance Program	Chicago TARP Maintenance
Maintenance Approach	Preventive maintenance with reactive repairs as needed	Comprehensive preventive and predictive maintenance
Technology Integration	Basic automation and monitoring with some smart sensor applications	Advanced analytics, predictive modeling, and specialized inspection equipment
Resource Allocation	In-house maintenance teams with occasional external contractors	Public-private partnership model with specialized contractors
Documentation System	Centralized database with basic record-keeping	Advanced database with GIS integration and historical tracking
Maintenance Frequency	Regular but fixed schedule based on component type	Dynamic scheduling based on condition assessment and risk analysis
Cost-Effectiveness	Lower cost due to simpler technology and smaller scale	Higher cost due to complex infrastructure and advanced technology

Key Differences:

The TARP program employs more advanced technology and predictive maintenance approaches, while Guipan relies more on traditional preventive maintenance.
Chicago's program uses a public-private partnership model, whereas Guipan primarily uses in-house or government-contracted services.
TARP's maintenance is driven by risk assessment and condition monitoring, while Guipan follows a more fixed schedule approach.

Advantages of Guipan Approach:

Lower initial investment in technology and specialized equipment.
Clear responsibility allocation within the project management structure.
Simplified implementation and management for smaller-scale systems.

Limitations of Guipan Approach:

Less efficient resource allocation compared to predictive maintenance systems.
Higher long-term costs due to potential for unaddressed issues leading to more extensive repairs.
Limited ability to adapt to changing conditions or emerging problems.

3.3 Emergency Response and Risk Management

The Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project implements comprehensive emergency response and risk management strategies to address potential incidents and ensure the continued safe operation of the water system.

3.3.1 Risk Assessment and Management

The risk assessment and management process includes:

Hazard Identification: Comprehensive identification of potential hazards, including:
- Natural disasters: Floods, droughts, typhoons, extreme weather events
- Equipment failures: Pump failures, valve malfunctions, power outages
- Human-induced incidents: Pollution spills, vandalism, operational errors
- Environmental impacts: Algal blooms, oxygen depletion, invasive species (1).
Risk Analysis: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of the likelihood and consequences of identified hazards. This includes:
- Probability assessment: Likelihood of each hazard occurring
- Impact assessment: Potential consequences for human health, environment, infrastructure, and economy
- Risk prioritization: Ranking risks based on severity and likelihood (1).
Risk Mitigation: Implementation of measures to reduce the likelihood or consequences of identified risks:
- Engineering controls: Redundancy in critical systems, improved structural design, protective barriers
- Administrative controls: Enhanced training, improved procedures, increased monitoring
- Emergency preparedness: Development of response plans, establishment of communication protocols, procurement of emergency equipment (1).
Risk Monitoring: Continuous monitoring of risk factors and reassessment of risks as conditions change. This includes regular review of incident reports, near-miss events, and changes in operating conditions (1).

3.3.2 Emergency Response Protocols

The emergency response protocols include:

Emergency Classification: Clear criteria for classifying emergencies based on severity and potential impacts, typically 分为:
- Level I: Minor incidents requiring immediate but routine response
- Level II: Moderate incidents with localized impacts requiring coordinated response
- Level III: Major incidents with widespread impacts requiring regional or city-wide response (1).
Response Activation: Well-defined procedures for activating the emergency response system, including:
- Triggering mechanisms (e.g., sensor alarms, field reports)
- Communication channels for notifying response personnel
- Activation levels corresponding to emergency classifications (1).
Response Actions: Specific actions to be taken in response to different types of emergencies:
- Pollution incidents: Isolation of Pollution source，containment measures, enhanced treatment
- Flooding: Activation of emergency pumping, sandbag deployment, evacuation of affected areas
- Equipment failure: Activation of backup systems, implementation of bypasses, immediate repairs
- Structural damage: Temporary stabilization, safety barriers, evacuation if necessary (1).
Recovery Procedures: Detailed plans for restoring normal operations after an emergency, including:
- Damage assessment and prioritization of repairs
- Restoration of services and systems
- Debris removal and environmental cleanup
- Documentation of lessons learned and implementation of preventive measures (1).
Communication Protocols: Clear procedures for communicating with internal personnel, external agencies, and the public during emergencies, including:
- Notification chains for internal personnel
- Coordination with local emergency management agencies
- Public information dissemination through multiple channels (1).

3.3.3 Case Study: Comparison with International Emergency Response Practices

A comparison with the emergency response practices of the Netherlands' Delta Programme provides valuable insights into international approaches to water system emergency management:

Netherlands Delta Programme Emergency Response:

Multi-layered Defense Strategy: Three layers of defense including prevention (dikes, barriers), resistance (flood-resistant infrastructure), and recovery (emergency response plans) (8).
National Coordination: Centralized coordination through the National Crisis Center with clear roles for different agencies.
Scenario Planning: Development of detailed scenario-based emergency plans for various flood and water management crises.
Public Communication: Advanced systems for public warning and information dissemination during emergencies (8).

Comparison with Guipan Project:

Comparison Factor	Guipan Emergency Response	Netherlands Delta Programme
Risk Assessment Approach	Hazard identification and risk analysis focused on specific water system threats	Comprehensive risk assessment including climate change projections
Response Structure	Multi-level classification with specific response protocols for each level	Three-layer defense strategy with clear roles for different agencies
Technology Integration	Basic automation and monitoring with centralized control system	Advanced modeling, real-time data integration, and decision support systems
Public Communication	Standard notification procedures with limited public engagement	Advanced public warning systems and information dissemination
Training and Drills	Regular training for response personnel with occasional drills	Comprehensive training programs and regular large-scale exercises
Recovery Planning	Post-incident assessment and repair prioritization	Long-term recovery planning integrated with climate adaptation strategies

Key Differences:

The Netherlands' approach incorporates climate change projections and long-term adaptation into emergency planning, while Guipan focuses more on immediate risks.
The Dutch system emphasizes multi-layered defense and national coordination, whereas Guipan's response is more localized to the water system itself.
Guipan's emergency protocols are primarily reactive to specific incidents, while the Dutch system is part of a comprehensive risk management framework.

Advantages of Guipan Approach:

Clear and focused on specific risks relevant to the water system.
Simpler structure that is easier to implement and manage.
Direct alignment with the project's specific objectives and infrastructure.

Limitations of Guipan Approach:

Less integration with broader municipal or regional emergency management systems.
Limited consideration of long-term climate change impacts on risk profiles.
Less emphasis on public awareness and preparedness compared to international best practices.

IV. International Standards and Specifications

4.1 Comparison of Design Standards

The Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project was designed and constructed in accordance with a comprehensive set of technical standards and specifications, which can be compared with international standards commonly used in similar projects around the world.

4.1.1 China's Design Standards

The primary design standards applied in the Guipan project include:

GB 50014-2021: Standard for Design of Outdoor Wastewater Engineering
- Specifies basic principles and requirements for outdoor wastewater engineering system design.
- Establishes design criteria for wastewater flow rates, pipe materials, hydraulic calculations, and structural design.
- Provides guidelines for sewage interception network design and integration with treatment facilities (1).
GB 50268-2008: Code for Construction and Acceptance of Water Supply and Sewerage Pipeline Engineering
- Provides detailed requirements for construction, inspection, and acceptance of water supply and sewerage pipeline systems.
- Specifies materials, construction methods, and quality control procedures for pipeline installation (1).
GB 3838-2002: Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water
- Defines water quality criteria for surface water bodies, including classification based on use:
  - Class I: Source of drinking water and nature reserves
  - Class II: Sources of drinking water after simple treatment
  - Class III: Sources of drinking water after conventional treatment
  - Class IV: General industrial water and recreational water
  - Class V: Agricultural water and general landscape water (1).

CJJ/T 210-2014: Technical Specification for Trenchless Renewal and Rehabilitation of Urban Drainage Pipelines
- Focuses on trenchless technologies for pipeline renewal and rehabilitation.
- Provides guidelines for selection, design, and construction of trenchless pipeline projects (1).
HJ/T 353-2007: Technical Specifications for Environmental Monitoring of Wastewater Treatment Plants
- Establishes requirements for environmental monitoring of wastewater treatment plants, including outfall systems.
- Specifies parameters to be monitored, monitoring frequencies, and reporting requirements (1).

4.1.2 International Design Standards

Key international design standards for comparison include:

ASCE/EWRI 45-10: Standard Guidelines for the Design of Municipal Wastewater Marine Outfalls (USA)
- Provides comprehensive guidelines for planning, design, and construction of marine outfall systems.
- Covers hydraulic design, structural design, environmental considerations, and monitoring requirements.
- Emphasizes integration with receiving water body characteristics and ecosystem protection (4).
BS EN 752:2017: Drain and Sewer Systems Outside Buildings (UK and Europe)
- Specifies functional requirements and principles for strategic and policy activities related to planning, design, installation, operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of drain and sewer systems.
- Focuses on sustainability and lifecycle assessment in system design (4).
DIN EN 14654-2:2015: Drain and Sewer Systems Outside Buildings - Management and Control of Activities - Part 2: Rehabilitation (Germany and Europe)
- Focuses on management and control of rehabilitation activities for drain and sewer systems.
- Provides guidelines for planning, executing, and monitoring rehabilitation projects (4).
ISO 11295:2022: Plastics Piping Systems Used for the Rehabilitation of Pipelines - Classification and Overview of Strategic, Tactical and Operational Activities
- Establishes framework for classification and overview of activities related to pipeline rehabilitation.
- Covers strategic planning, tactical implementation, and operational aspects of pipeline rehabilitation (4).
Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (EU)
- Establishes a framework for the protection of inland surface waters, transitional waters, coastal waters, and groundwater.
- Requires member states to achieve good ecological status and good chemical status in all water bodies by 2015 (with possible extensions) (4).

4.1.3 Comparative Analysis

A comparative analysis of the design standards reveals several notable similarities and differences:

Similarities:

Hydraulic Design Principles: Both Chinese and international standards share fundamental principles for hydraulic design, including flow rate calculations, velocity considerations, and pressure drop calculations. These principles are essential for ensuring proper functioning of water systems (4).
Structural Design Requirements: All standards address the structural design of pipeline systems, including considerations for internal pressure, external loads, and environmental factors. This ensures the safety and durability of infrastructure (4).
Material Specifications: Both Chinese and international standards specify requirements for pipeline materials, including strength, durability, and corrosion resistance. This ensures that materials used can withstand the specific conditions of the application (4).
Environmental Considerations: All standards incorporate environmental protection requirements, including minimizing impacts on water bodies and ecosystems. This reflects the global recognition of the importance of environmental sustainability in water management (4).

Differences:

Regulatory Framework: Chinese standards operate within China's specific regulatory environment, which may have different permitting requirements and environmental protection priorities compared to international standards. For example, China's standards emphasize compliance with specific national policies and objectives (4).
Design Loads: Chinese standards specify different design loads for various environmental conditions (e.g., seismic activity, temperature variations) compared to international standards. This reflects China's unique geographical and climatic conditions (4).
Water Quality Targets: The classification system for water quality (GB 3838-2002) uses a different structure compared to international systems like the EU Water Framework Directive. For example, China's classification is based on use categories (drinking water, industrial water, etc.), while the EU system focuses on ecological status (1).
Implementation Approach: Chinese standards often emphasize prescriptive design methods, while international standards increasingly promote performance-based approaches that allow for more flexibility in meeting objectives. This difference reflects different regulatory philosophies and levels of design professionalization (4).
Risk Assessment: International standards, particularly those from Europe and North America, increasingly incorporate risk assessment and management principles into the design process, while Chinese standards traditionally focus more on deterministic design approaches. This difference is gradually decreasing as China adopts more risk-based approaches (4).

4.2 Comparison of Construction and Testing Standards

The construction and testing standards applied in the Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project can be compared with international standards to identify common practices and regional variations.

4.2.1 China's Construction and Testing Standards

The primary construction and testing standards applied in the Guipan project include:

GB 50268-2008: Code for Construction and Acceptance of Water Supply and Sewerage Pipeline Engineering
- Specifies requirements for pipeline installation, jointing methods, and backfilling procedures.
- Establishes testing and inspection methods for ensuring the quality and integrity of pipeline systems (1).
CJJ/T 210-2014: Technical Specification for Trenchless Renewal and Rehabilitation of Urban Drainage Pipelines
- Provides detailed guidelines for trenchless construction methods, including horizontal directional drilling, microtunneling, and pipeline rehabilitation techniques.
- Specifies quality control procedures and acceptance criteria for trenchless projects (1).
GB/T 19472.1-2004: Thermoplastic Pipes for Underground Drainage and Sewerage Systems - Part 1: Polyethylene (PE) Pipes
- Specifies requirements for PE pipes used in underground drainage and sewerage systems.
- Covers material properties, dimensions, mechanical performance, and testing methods (1).
GB/T 11836-2020: Concrete Pipes
- Specifies requirements for concrete pipes used in water supply, drainage, and sewerage systems.
- Covers material composition, dimensions, strength requirements, and testing methods (1).
GB 50204-2015: Code for Construction Quality Acceptance of Concrete Structures
- Specifies requirements for the construction and quality acceptance of concrete structures, including those used in water infrastructure (1).

4.2.2 International Construction and Testing Standards

Key international construction and testing standards for comparison include:

ASTM F1216-16: Standard Practice for Rehabilitation of Existing Pipelines and Conduits by the Trenchless Techniques of Pull-in-Place and Fold-and-Fit Polyethylene (PE) Liners (USA)
- Provides guidelines for the rehabilitation of existing pipelines using pull-in-place and fold-and-fit PE liners.
- Specifies material requirements, installation procedures, and testing methods (4).
ASTM F2561-19: Standard Practice for Rehabilitation of a Sewer Service Lateral and Its Connection to the Main Using a One-Piece Main and Lateral Cured-in-Place Liner (USA)
- Focuses on the rehabilitation of sewer service laterals and their connections to the main sewer.
- Provides guidelines for materials, installation methods, and quality control (4).
BS EN 13566-1:2003: Non-Destructive Testing - Ground Penetrating Radar - Part 1: General Principles for Inspection of Reinforced Concrete Structures (UK and Europe)
- Specifies general principles for using ground penetrating radar for inspection of reinforced concrete structures.
- Provides guidelines for equipment, testing procedures, and data interpretation (4).
DIN EN 15885:2010: Classification and Characteristics of Techniques for Renovation, Repair and Replacement of Drains and Sewers (Germany and Europe)
- Classifies and describes techniques for the renovation, repair, and replacement of drains and sewers.
- Provides a framework for comparing different trenchless technologies (4).
ISO 1183-1:2020: Plastics - Methods for Determining the Density of Non-Cellular Plastics - Part 1: Immersion Method, Liquid Pyknometer Method and Titration Method
- Specifies methods for determining the density of non-cellular plastics, which is important for material selection and quality control in pipeline systems (4).

4.2.3 Comparative Analysis

A comparative analysis of the construction and testing standards reveals several notable similarities and differences:

Similarities:

Material Testing: Both Chinese and international standards specify comprehensive testing requirements for pipeline materials, including mechanical properties, durability, and chemical resistance. This ensures that materials meet the necessary performance criteria for their intended use (4).
Installation Procedures: All standards provide detailed guidelines for pipeline installation, including jointing methods, alignment control, and backfilling requirements. This ensures that installations are performed consistently and correctly (4).
Quality Control: Both Chinese and international standards emphasize the importance of quality control during construction, including inspection procedures and acceptance criteria. This helps ensure that completed projects meet the required standards (4).
Non-Destructive Testing: Both Chinese and international standards incorporate non-destructive testing methods for evaluating pipeline integrity, including ground penetrating radar and CCTV inspection. This allows for assessment of pipeline condition without damaging the infrastructure (4).

Differences:

Testing Protocols: Chinese standards specify different testing protocols for certain materials and conditions compared to international standards. For example, China's standards for concrete pipes (GB/T 11836-2020) have different testing requirements compared to ASTM or ISO standards for similar products (4).
Safety Requirements: Chinese standards place particular emphasis on construction safety in high-risk environments, with specific requirements for worker protection and hazard management. This reflects China's regulatory focus on workplace safety (4).
Rehabilitation Techniques: Chinese standards for trenchless rehabilitation (CJJ/T 210-2014) provide detailed guidance for specific techniques commonly used in China, which may differ from international practices. For example, China has developed specific expertise in certain trenchless technologies due to its urban development needs (4).
Documentation Requirements: Chinese standards typically require more detailed documentation of construction processes and quality control measures compared to international standards. This reflects China's administrative requirements and emphasis on record-keeping (4).
Acceptance Criteria: The specific numerical criteria for accepting construction work may differ between Chinese and international standards, even when similar tests are specified. This can affect how projects are evaluated and approved (4).

4.3 Implementation of International Standards in Guipan Project

The Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project incorporates several international standards and best practices, particularly in areas where Chinese standards may not provide detailed guidance or where international expertise offers proven solutions.

4.3.1 Adoption of International Design Principles

The project adopted international design principles in several key areas:

Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM): The project incorporated the principle of treating the entire water system as a single unit, considering interactions between different components and with the broader environment. This approach aligns with international IWRM principles promoted by organizations such as the Global Water Partnership (1).
Ecological Engineering: The project employed ecological engineering principles in the design of riverbank stabilization and aquatic ecosystem restoration, moving away from purely structural approaches. This aligns with international trends toward nature-based solutions in water management (1).
Adaptive Management: While not fully implemented, the project incorporated elements of adaptive management through its monitoring system and flexible implementation approach, allowing for adjustments based on performance data. This aligns with the adaptive management principles used in projects like the Netherlands' Delta Programme (8).
Risk-Based Design: The project incorporated risk assessment in certain aspects of the design, particularly in the selection of structural components and emergency response planning. This aligns with international standards that increasingly emphasize risk management in water infrastructure design (1).

4.3.2 Application of International Construction Practices

The project applied international construction practices in several key areas:

Trenchless Technology: The project utilized trenchless construction methods such as horizontal directional drilling and pipe bursting for certain pipeline installations, following international best practices for minimizing disruption in urban areas. This aligns with standards such as ASTM F1216 and F2561 (1).
Green Infrastructure: The project incorporated elements of green infrastructure, such as permeable pavements and rain gardens, to manage stormwater and reduce pollution loads. This aligns with international practices promoted by organizations like the US Environmental Protection Agency (1).
Sustainable Construction Materials: The project made use of recycled materials and sustainable construction products where feasible, following international trends toward more sustainable infrastructure development (1).
Construction Waste Management: The project implemented measures for reducing, reusing, and recycling construction waste, following international standards for sustainable construction (1).

4.3.3 Integration of International Monitoring and Maintenance Standards

The project integrated international monitoring and maintenance standards in several key areas:

Water Quality Monitoring: The project established a comprehensive water quality monitoring program that included parameters and methods consistent with international standards, allowing for comparison with global data. This aligns with the monitoring requirements of the EU Water Framework Directive and US EPA guidelines (1).
Structural Health Monitoring: The project implemented a structural health monitoring system for key infrastructure components, following international standards for civil infrastructure monitoring (1).
Preventive Maintenance: The project adopted a preventive maintenance approach based on international standards, including regular inspections, condition assessments, and scheduled maintenance activities. This aligns with the maintenance practices outlined in BS EN 752 and DIN EN 14654 (1).
Digital Twin Technology: While not fully implemented, the project established the foundation for a digital twin of the water system, which will allow for more sophisticated monitoring and management in the future. This aligns with emerging international practices in smart water infrastructure (1).

The integration of international standards and best practices in the Guipan project has enhanced its technical quality, environmental performance, and long-term sustainability. It has also facilitated knowledge exchange between Chinese and international water management professionals, contributing to the development of China's water management capabilities.

V. Comparative Analysis and Recommendations

5.1 Technical Approach Comparison

A comprehensive comparison of the technical approaches employed in the Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project with international case studies reveals several key insights into the strengths and limitations of different methods.

5.1.1 Sewage Interception Technology Comparison

The sewage interception approach in the Guipan project can be compared with international approaches:

Guipan Project Approach:

Traditional gravity flow and pressure pipelines with phased implementation.
Focus on domestic sewage interception to address the most immediate pollution source.
Localized design and construction to minimize environmental and social disruption (1).

International Approaches:

Chicago TARP (USA): Deep tunnel system combined with storage reservoirs to capture combined sewer overflows during storms.
Netherlands' Integrated Water Management: Integration of sewer systems with urban planning and green infrastructure for comprehensive water management.
Singapore's Active, Beautiful, Clean Waters (ABC) Programme: Combination of sewerage upgrades with urban design and public engagement (9).

Comparison:

Advantages of Guipan Approach: Lower capital investment, shorter construction period, and direct focus on pollution sources make it suitable for localized river improvement in areas with budget constraints.
Advantages of International Approaches: More comprehensive solutions addressing both sewage and stormwater management, integration with urban planning, and long-term sustainability.
Key Differences: Guipan focuses on immediate pollution sources, while international approaches address broader water management challenges including stormwater, flood control, and urban development integration (9).

5.1.2 River Dredging Technology Comparison

The river dredging approach in the Guipan project can be compared with international approaches:

Guipan Project Approach:

Ecological dredging vessels, floating excavators, and manual hydraulic dredging.
Focus on removing accumulated sediments to reduce internal pollution sources.
Dewatering and solidification of dredged materials for resource utilization (e.g., ecological embankments) (1).

International Approaches:

Charles River Restoration (USA): River morphology restoration, floodplain/wetland creation, and tidal management.
Netherlands' Room for the River: Large-scale floodplain restoration and river re-meandering to enhance natural processes.
China's Taihu Lake Dredging: Large-scale sediment removal combined with ecological restoration (5).

Comparison:

Advantages of Guipan Approach: Lower cost, shorter implementation time, and focus on immediate pollution reduction.
Advantages of International Approaches: More comprehensive ecosystem restoration, integration with flood management, and long-term ecological benefits.
Key Differences: Guipan focuses on sediment removal and basic ecological restoration, while international approaches emphasize broader ecosystem functioning and integration with other water management objectives (5).

5.1.3 Ecological Restoration Technology Comparison

The ecological restoration approach in the Guipan project can be compared with international approaches:

Guipan Project Approach:

Aquatic plant and animal introduction, microbial enhancement, and aeration.
Focus on water quality improvement through biological means.
Limited integration with urban planning and recreational uses (1).

International Approaches:

Charles River Restoration (USA): Comprehensive landscape integration with urban planning, creation of recreational spaces, and river morphology restoration.
Germany's Near-Natural River Engineering: Emphasis on river morphology restoration and natural processes rather than direct biological interventions.
Japan's Multi-Natural River Work Method: Combination of natural materials and structural engineering for riverbank stabilization and ecosystem enhancement (5).

Comparison:

Advantages of Guipan Approach: Faster implementation, lower initial investment, and direct impact on water quality.
Advantages of International Approaches: Stronger emphasis on ecosystem functioning, integration with urban planning, and creation of multiple benefits beyond water quality.
Key Differences: Guipan focuses on direct biological interventions for water quality improvement, while international approaches emphasize ecosystem processes and broader landscape integration (5).

5.1.4 Water Circulation Activation Technology Comparison

The water circulation activation approach in the Guipan project can be compared with international approaches:

Guipan Project Approach:

Inverted siphon culvert and water connection channel for specific areas.
Focus on improving water exchange between specific water bodies.
Limited integration with broader urban planning objectives (19).

International Approaches:

Netherlands' Room for the River: Large-scale river reconfiguration and floodplain restoration to enhance natural water circulation.
Germany's River Renaturalization: Restoration of natural river meanders and floodplains to enhance ecological functioning and water circulation.
USA's Green Infrastructure: Use of permeable pavements, rain gardens, and bioswales to enhance stormwater infiltration and groundwater recharge (7).

Comparison:

Advantages of Guipan Approach: Innovative use of inverted siphon technology to maintain water flow while accommodating land use needs, specific focus on water quality improvement.
Advantages of International Approaches: Broader integration with flood management, ecological restoration, and urban planning; more sustainable long-term solutions.
Key Differences: Guipan's approach is more focused on hydraulic engineering and localized environmental benefits, while international approaches emphasize ecosystem processes and multiple benefits (7).

5.2 Lessons Learned and Best Practices

The implementation of the Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project has yielded valuable lessons learned and identified best practices that can inform future projects of similar scope and complexity.

5.2.1 Technical Lessons Learned

Key technical lessons learned include:

Integrated System Approach: Treating the entire water system as a single unit rather than isolated parts yields better results. The project's initial focus on individual components led to suboptimal outcomes until a more integrated approach was adopted (1).
Local Adaptation: Technology selection must be based on detailed understanding of local conditions, including topography, geology, climate, and pollution sources. Standardized approaches may not be effective in all contexts (1).
Phased Implementation: A phased approach allows for adjustments based on performance monitoring and changing conditions. This flexibility is particularly important in complex urban environments (1).
Ecological Engineering: Incorporating ecological principles into engineering design can enhance both environmental performance and long-term sustainability. The project's initial emphasis on purely structural solutions was augmented with ecological approaches that proved more effective (1).
Data-Driven Decision Making: Comprehensive monitoring and data analysis are essential for effective management and adaptive decision making. The project's water affairs information system proved invaluable for optimizing operations (1).

5.2.2 Environmental Management Best Practices

Key environmental management best practices include:

Source Control: Prioritizing pollution source control through comprehensive sewage interception and industrial pollution control yielded significant water quality improvements. This approach addresses the root cause of water pollution rather than just symptoms (1).
Ecological Restoration: Combining physical interventions with ecological restoration methods enhanced the long-term sustainability of the project. Aquatic plants and animals not only improved water quality but also created habitats for other organisms (1).
Water Conservation: Implementing water conservation measures alongside pollution control increased the efficiency of the entire system. Reducing overall water demand 减轻了 treatment infrastructure 的压力 (1).
Green Infrastructure Integration: Incorporating green infrastructure elements such as permeable pavements and rain gardens improved stormwater management and reduced pollution loads. These elements should be expanded in future phases (1).
Biodiversity Enhancement: Creating diverse aquatic and riparian habitats increased biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. This approach proved particularly effective in areas where ecological restoration was combined with reduced pollution loads (1).

5.2.3 Stakeholder Engagement Best Practices

Key stakeholder engagement best practices include:

Multi-Stakeholder Coordination: Establishing a platform for coordination between different government departments, communities, and other stakeholders improved the efficiency and effectiveness of the project. This approach helped overcome institutional barriers to integrated water management (1).
Community Involvement: Engaging local communities in the project through education programs and volunteer activities increased support and improved compliance with pollution control measures. Communities with a sense of ownership in the project were more likely to support its objectives (1).
Transparent Communication: Regular and transparent communication about project progress, challenges, and results built trust and maintained public support. This was particularly important during periods when visible results were slow to materialize (1).
Incentive Programs: Implementing incentive programs for businesses and households that adopted pollution prevention measures increased participation and improved outcomes. Financial incentives proved effective in encouraging voluntary compliance (1).
Cross-Sector Collaboration: Collaborating with sectors beyond traditional water management (e.g., urban planning, transportation, economic development) enhanced the integration of water management objectives into broader city planning (1).

5.3 Recommendations for Future Projects

Based on the experiences from the Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project and international comparisons, the following recommendations are made for future water system treatment projects:

5.3.1 Technology Development and Application

Recommendations for technology development and application include:

Advanced Monitoring and Control: Invest in advanced monitoring technologies, including IoT sensors, drones, and satellite remote sensing, to improve data collection and decision support. This will enable more precise targeting of interventions and better tracking of progress (1).
Green and Gray Infrastructure Integration: Combine traditional "gray" infrastructure with green infrastructure solutions to create more sustainable and resilient water systems. This approach can address multiple objectives simultaneously (e.g., pollution control, flood management, urban amenity) (1).
Nature-Based Solutions: Increase the application of nature-based solutions, such as constructed wetlands, biofiltration systems, and natural river restoration, which often provide multiple benefits at lower long-term costs than purely engineering approaches (1).
Digital Twin Technology: Develop and implement digital twin technology for comprehensive water system modeling and management. This will allow for simulation of different scenarios and optimization of operations (1).
Smart Water Management: Implement smart water management systems that use artificial intelligence and machine learning to optimize operations, predict failures, and improve resource allocation (1).

5.3.2 Environmental Protection and Sustainability

Recommendations for environmental protection and sustainability include:

Water-Energy-Food Nexus Approach: Adopt a nexus approach that considers interactions between water, energy, and food systems in planning and implementation. This will help identify synergies and trade-offs that may otherwise be overlooked (1).
Climate Resilience: Incorporate climate change projections into design and planning to ensure that infrastructure remains effective under changing conditions. This includes considering increased frequency of extreme weather events and long-term changes in precipitation patterns (1).
Watershed Management: Expand the scope of water system management to include the entire watershed, addressing both upstream and downstream impacts. This requires coordination across administrative boundaries (1).
Resource Recovery: Implement technologies that recover valuable resources (e.g., nutrients, energy, water) from wastewater and stormwater. This aligns with the principles of circular economy (1).
Ecological Connectivity: Enhance ecological connectivity within and between water systems to support biodiversity and ecosystem resilience. This includes creating wildlife corridors and maintaining connections between different habitat types (1).

5.3.3 Governance and Management

Recommendations for governance and management include:

Integrated Water Resources Management: Implement a more comprehensive integrated water resources management approach that coordinates across different sectors and levels of government. This requires institutional reforms and improved coordination mechanisms (1).
Adaptive Management: Establish formal adaptive management processes that incorporate monitoring data, stakeholder input, and periodic reviews to continuously improve project effectiveness. This approach recognizes that perfect knowledge is rarely available at the outset (1).
Performance-Based Contracts: Use performance-based contracting that ties payment to achievement of specific outcomes rather than simply completion of activities. This aligns incentives with desired results (1).
Public-Private Partnerships: Explore opportunities for public-private partnerships to leverage private sector expertise and financing while maintaining public oversight. This can help accelerate implementation and improve technical quality (1).
Capacity Building: Invest in capacity building for technical staff, decision makers, and communities to ensure long-term sustainability of project outcomes. This includes both technical training and institutional development (1).

By implementing these recommendations, future water system treatment projects can build on the successes and learn from the challenges of the Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project, creating more effective, sustainable, and resilient solutions for urban water management.

VI. Conclusion

The Foshan Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project represents a significant effort to address the complex challenges of urban water pollution and ecosystem degradation in China's rapidly developing Pearl River Delta region. With a total investment of 2.558 billion yuan, the project has implemented a comprehensive set of technical solutions across 57 rivers and tributaries covering 93.91 square kilometers (1).

The project's key achievements include:

Pollution Source Control: Implementation of sewage interception networks and industrial pollution control measures that have significantly reduced direct discharge of pollutants into water bodies (1).
Water Quality Improvement: Achieving significant improvements in water quality, with the main Guipan River and Lunjiao River approaching Grade IV standards, and elimination of black and odorous conditions in most tributaries (1).
Ecological Restoration: Successful restoration of aquatic ecosystems in many sections, with increased biodiversity and improved self-purification capacity (1).
Water System Activation: Implementation of innovative hydraulic structures such as the Guipan Water Overpass to improve water circulation and connectivity (19).
Integrated Management: Establishment of a comprehensive monitoring and management system that has improved the efficiency and effectiveness of water system operations (1).

Comparative analysis with international case studies reveals both similarities and differences in approaches to water system management:

Similarities: All approaches recognize the importance of integrated solutions that address multiple aspects of water management simultaneously.
Differences: International approaches often emphasize broader integration with urban planning, greater use of green infrastructure, and stronger public engagement compared to the primarily engineering-focused approach of the Guipan project (9).

The Guipan project has demonstrated several important lessons for future water system management initiatives:

Phased Implementation: A phased approach allows for adaptation based on monitoring results and changing conditions, improving overall effectiveness and cost-efficiency.
Local Adaptation: Technology selection must be based on detailed understanding of local conditions to ensure effectiveness and sustainability.
Data-Driven Decision Making: Comprehensive monitoring and data analysis are essential for optimizing operations and ensuring that interventions achieve desired outcomes.
Stakeholder Engagement: Active engagement of stakeholders at all levels improves project acceptance, implementation efficiency, and long-term sustainability.

Looking forward, the Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project provides a foundation for further improvements in urban water management in Foshan and other rapidly developing cities in China and around the world. Key priorities for future development include:

Enhanced Integration: Further integration of water system management with urban planning, transportation, and economic development to maximize synergies and minimize conflicts.
Green Infrastructure: Increased use of green infrastructure solutions that provide multiple benefits beyond traditional engineering approaches.
Climate Resilience: Incorporation of climate change considerations into planning and design to ensure long-term effectiveness in a changing environment.
Smart Water Management: Implementation of advanced digital technologies to improve monitoring, modeling, and decision support.
Community Engagement: Strengthened community engagement and education to build long-term support for water conservation and pollution prevention.

By continuing to innovate and adapt based on lessons learned from projects like the Guipan Water System Comprehensive Treatment Project, cities can develop more sustainable and resilient approaches to urban water management that balance environmental protection, economic development, and social well-being.

参考资料

[1] 2025 Industrial Project of the Year - Global Water Awards https://globalwaterawards.com/2025-industrial-project-of-the-year/

[2] Performance Assessment of Rural Decentralized Domestic Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Foshan, China https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/16/13/1901

[3] Foshan, China: Reducing Water Pollution in the Pearl River https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/video/2016/05/26/foshan-china-reducing-water-pollution-in-pearl-river

[4] 世界各国流域水环境管理治理的成功经验 https://aoc.ouc.edu.cn/2019/0505/c9824a239179/pagem.psp

[5] 河道生态修复国际案例和对策建议 - 生态中国网 https://www.eco.gov.cn/news_info/31404/index.html

[6] 水十条解读|中国水污染防治计划出炉，盘点国外五大治理案例_绿政公署_澎湃新闻-The Paper https://m.thepaper.cn/kuaibao_detail.jsp?contid=1321493&from=kuaibao

[7] 荷兰:水治理战略的演变 https://www.chinawater.com.cn/newscenter/jlkt/202011/t20201113_758195.html

[8] 荷兰国家水规划:气候自适应的水治理新篇章_上海规划资源 http://m.toutiao.com/group/7239607812433674791/?upstream_biz=doubao

[9] 他山之石芝加哥水污染治理策略 https://mwr.guizhou.gov.cn/ztjj/rdzt/srsshzzzldstzl/tszs/202007/t20200709_76596160.html

[10] The River Chief System and River Pollution Control in China: A Case Study of Foshan https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/11/8/1606

[11] iF Design - Smart drinking water terminal https://ifdesign.com/en/winner-ranking/project/smart-drinking-water-terminal/619362

[12] Simulation and optimal control for a long‐distance water diversion project under different rainfall types: A case study in the Middle Route of China's South‐to‐North Water Diversion Project* - Qiao - 2021 - Irrigation and Drainage - Wiley Online Library https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ird.2627

[13] 水更清了!环境更美了!佛山两个治水工程进展顺利_顺德 https://m.sohu.com/a/271022385_479470/

[14] 维尔利助力顺德打赢黑臭水体攻坚战_生态 https://m.sohu.com/a/421634610_120477246/

[15] 投入25亿元实施综合整治，来看桂畔海水系整治工程进展如何 http://static.nfapp.southcn.com/content/201802/08/c961617.html

[16] 顺德全区一盘棋整治水环境，大良银涌河截污工程下月完工_南方plus_南方+ https://static.nfapp.southcn.com/content/201806/13/c1236591.html

[17] 桂畔海水系综合整治后，水质提升如何?顺德人大首次开展专题询问_南方+客户端 http://m.toutiao.com/group/6714992557031424520/?upstream_biz=doubao

[18] 建设项目环境影响报告表(pdf) http://www.shunde.gov.cn/data/backupfn/1539238465.pdf

[19] 总投资1.35亿-抖音 https://www.iesdouyin.com/share/video/7461117813806337290/?did=MS4wLjABAAAANwkJuWIRFOzg5uCpDRpMj4OX-QryoDgn-yYlXQnRwQQ&from_aid=1128&from_ssr=1&iid=MS4wLjABAAAANwkJuWIRFOzg5uCpDRpMj4OX-QryoDgn-yYlXQnRwQQ&mid=7461117886359292698&region=&scene_from=dy_open_search_video&share_sign=TrQhhPXxkqoosOaiyLq7ma1bGPX1ZWBBEWs22smzXHo-&share_version=280700&titleType=title&ts=1752369995&u_code=0&video_share_track_ver=&with_sec_did=1

[20] WEAP: Water Evaluation And Planning System https://www.weap21.org/

[21] Source Water Assessments | US EPA https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/source-water-assessments

[22] Water Action Hub | Connect to Sustainability Projects Around the World https://wateractionhub.org/

[23] 佛山市顺德区桂畔海河水系综合整治措施 - 豆丁网 https://www.docin.com/touch_new/preview_new.do?id=2879718559

[24] 顺德桂畔海水系河涌清淤与底泥处理技术-维普期刊中文期刊服务平台 http://dianda.cqvip.com/Qikan/Article/Detail?id=7102530985

[25] 顺德桂畔海河水系污染现状研究及河涌清淤、生态修复 - 豆丁网 https://www.docin.com/touch_new/preview_new.do?id=3825065920

[26] 桂畔海水系综合整治项目水生态修复工程 – 生态规划与设计研究中心 https://web.pkusz.edu.cn/epdrc/?page_id=112&preview=true

[27] 投25亿整治桂畔海56条支涌!顺德史上最大水体整治项目动工 https://static.nfapp.southcn.com/content/201701/20/c257936.html

[28] 建设项目环境影响报告表(pdf) http://www.shunde.gov.cn/data/backupfn/1532941493.pdf

THE END

Technical Details of Shenzhen Sea Outfall Trunk Canal Project: A Comparative Analysis with International Standards and Case Studies

Maizhou River Basin Water Environment Comprehensive Treatment Project: A Technical Manual for Engineers

Next article>>