ALTERNATIVE GRAVITY FLOW PVC PIPE WATER DISTRIBUTION IN THE COMMAND OF IRRIGATION PROJECT
water distribution system project
46
ALMA MATER STU FA Department of Civil Course WATER DISTRI Instructors: Dott. Ing. Andrea Bolognesi Dott. Ing. Cristiana Bragalli UDIORUM – UNIVERSITY O ACULTY OF ENGINEERING CIVIL ENGINEERING DICAM l and Environmental Engineering and Materia e of Advanced Hydrosystems Engineering IBUTION NETWORK DESIGN AND AN Academic Year 2012 – 2013 1 OF BOLOGNA als Science NALYSIS Student: Tommaso Cignali
-
Upload
mattia-bernardi -
Category
Documents
-
view
147 -
download
6
description
hydrosystem engineering
Transcript of water distribution system project
ALMA MATER STUDIORUM
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Materials Science
Course of Advanced Hydrosystems Engineering
WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK DES
Instructors: Dott. Ing. Andrea Bolognesi Dott. Ing. Cristiana Bragalli
ALMA MATER STUDIORUM – UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA
FACULTY OF ENGINEERING
CIVIL ENGINEERING
DICAM Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Materials Science
Course of Advanced Hydrosystems Engineering
WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
Instructors:
Dott. Ing. Andrea Bolognesi
Academic Year 2012 – 2013
1
UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Materials Science
IGN AND ANALYSIS
Instructors: Student:
Tommaso Cignali
2
The objective of the following project is to build a Water Distribution Network for an assigned area. The distribution conduits and nodes has been already designed from the delivery of the project data:
Starting from this map already georeferenced on EPANET, we have determined some useful data of the design project: Minimum Hydraulic Head for each node:
Minimum hydraulic head is calculated only once and it is the value with which to compare the hydraulic head that resulting from the single-period simulation: Hmin = Minimum Head for each node (m)
Hmin = znode + p +Hbuild,max + f Where: znode = elevation of axis pipe znode = zground – p (zground by the map; p = 1.8 m is assumed as average depth of the axis pipe) Hbuild,max = maximum height of the building in the area adjacent the node (Hbuild,max by map) f = 5 m (height above the base of the roof) Water demand
Residential usage rate per capita: d = 300 liters/capita/day
Population considered for the design (Geometric Increase Method)
� = �� � (1 + )� = 9184 � (1 + 0.009)�� = 13.143
3
P0 = 9184 inhabitants at 2001 r = 9‰ rate of increase of the population T = 40 years (In the case of WDNs, the higher are the year’s value, the “safer” is the design project) Base demand for each node Base demand for each node is calculated as follows:
���������� ������� = �� �ℎ�� ! = ∑ !#$(#,$)∈'
�# = �! (
)
* +
!#,2
./# = �# � �86400 (1/�)
Demand multipliers:
Peak Hour Demand: 34,567 = 3 (the average rate of usage during the maximum hour of usage in the year)
Minimum Hour Demand: 34,5#8 = 0.3 (the average rate of usage during the minimum hour of usage in the year)
These are the results obtained for each nodes:
Pipe ID Length
(m) Diam Unit Cost
€/m Cost € 1 132,76 150 39,4 5230,744
2 374,68 125 37 13863,16
3 119,74 100 27,2 3256,928
4 312,72 100 27,2 8505,984
5 289,09 60 19,8 5723,982
6 336,33 60 19,8 6659,334
7 135,81 60 19,8 2689,038
8 201,26 60 19,8 3984,948
9 132,53 100 27,2 3604,816
10 144,66 125 37 5352,42
11 175,72 125 37 6501,64
12 112,17 200 54,4 6102,048
13 210,74 200 54,4 11464,256
14 75,41 250 72,9 5497,389
15 181,42 200 54,4 9869,248
16 146,96 125 37 5437,52
17 162,69 80 24,5 3985,905
18 99,64 60 19,8 1972,872
19 52,98 60 19,8 1049,004
20 162,97 60 19,8 3226,806
21 83,96 80 24,5 2057,02
22 49,82 100 27,2 1355,104
23 78,5 100 27,2 2135,2
24 99,27 100 27,2 2700,144
25 82,29 80 24,5 2016,105
26 147,49 60 19,8 2920,302
27 197,32 60 19,8 3906,936
28 83,3 100 27,2 2265,76
29 113,8 100 27,2 3095,36
30 80,82 100 27,2 2198,304
31 340,97 100 27,2 9274,384
4
Node n zground Hbuild,max f Hmin Hmax H˛ test
1 65,5 26,9 5 97,4 133,7 120,99 OK
2 63,7 16,7 5 85,4 131,9 114,64 OK
3 62,3 30,3 5 97,6 130,5 111,59 OK
4 61,9 18,2 5 85,1 130,1 106,93 OK
5 60,4 34,1 5 99,5 128,6 105,02 OK
6 64,9 26,8 5 96,7 133,1 105,15 OK
7 67,3 17,5 5 89,8 135,5 107,26 OK
8 65,5 12,1 5 82,6 133,7 113,5 OK
9 65,6 26,8 5 97,4 133,8 117,97 OK
10 63,8 29,7 5 98,5 132 118,81 OK
11 62,8 33,4 5 101,2 131 114,28 OK
12 61,5 19,2 5 85,7 129,7 106,34 OK
13 60,3 23,6 5 88,9 128,5 105,79 OK
14 61 15,1 5 81,1 129,2 107,69 OK
15 62,4 33,5 5 100,9 130,6 111 OK
16 63 17,7 5 85,7 131,2 114,14 OK
17 65,2 30,6 5 100,8 133,4 119,45 OK
18 63,4 30,2 5 98,6 131,6 117,58 OK
19 61 30,6 5 96,6 129,2 108,63 OK
20 61,2 34 5 100,2 129,4 108,23 OK
21 61,5 26,8 5 93,3 129,7 106,88 OK
22 62,7 27,7 5 95,4 130,9 109,1 OK
23 61,4 24,3 5 90,7 129,6 110,31 OK
24 66,5 21,1 5 92,6 134,7 111,58 OK
25 63,6 11,8 5 80,4 131,8 111,97 OK
32 77,39 80 24,5 1896,055
33 112,37 80 24,5 2753,065
34 37,34 100 27,2 1015,648
35 108,85 100 27,2 2960,72
36 182,82 125 37 6764,34
37 136,02 150 39,4 5359,188
38 56,7 150 39,4 2233,98
39 124,08 125 37 4590,96
40 234,6 60 19,8 4645,08
41 203,83 80 24,5 4993,835
42 248,05 60 19,8 4911,39
43 65,19 60 19,8 1290,762
44 210,09 80 24,5 5147,205
45 147,57 80 24,5 3615,465
46 103,8 80 24,5 2543,1
47 210,95 60 19,8 4176,81
48 75,08 80 24,5 1839,46
49 180,29 80 24,5 4417,105
50 149,05 80 24,5 3651,725
51 215,05 80 24,5 5268,725
52 144,44 100 27,2 3928,768
53 34,74 125 37 1285,38
54 59,93 150 39,4 2361,242
55 165,67 80 24,5 4058,915
56 119,97 100 27,2 3263,184
57 83,17 100 27,2 2262,224
58 1 300 90,7 90,7
TOTAL 8405,86 TOT. COST 239.228 €
5
26 62,1 33,9 5 101 130,3 113,07 OK
27 62,4 17,1 5 84,5 130,6 115,12 OK
28 65,8 10,9 5 81,7 134 115,23 OK
29 63,9 17,1 5 86 132,1 115,53 OK
30 64,1 15,4 5 84,5 132,3 116,16 OK
31 64,1 30,6 5 99,7 132,3 120,45 OK
32 63,9 23,6 5 92,5 132,1 117,94 OK
33 64,6 29,4 5 99 132,8 119,29 OK
34 64,7 17,9 5 87,6 132,9 119,78 OK
35 64,9 16,5 5 86,4 133,1 117,84 OK
36 66 21,4 5 92,4 134,2 118,71 OK
After that I searched the pipes
Commercially available and have
assigned to each pipe its diameter and
relative roughness; considering this
scheme with a polyethylene pipes with
PN 16 bar and roughness equal to
0.0015 mm.
6
The assignment of the diameters of the pipes is probably the most delicate part of the project, as derived from this all the results calculated later. The design criteria is performed through an iterative method, parallel to a first verification of the criteria set out below, and check if the network is more or less balance. After several attempts, have been adopted for this network of diameters between 60 ÷ 125 mm. and a few diameters between 125 ÷ 250 mm while the diameter of the reservoir is used as diameter of 300 mm Once you have assigned to all pipes diameters must run the program and verify that all scenarios, that after describe, satisfy the following design criteria:
9#5#8 = 95#8 9#5#8 ≤ 9# ≤ 9#567 ∀(�) ∈ < 9#567 = =# + 70 ?
@5#8 ≅ 0.2 ?/� @5#8 ≤ @#$ ≤ @567 ∀(�) ∈ B @567 = 2 ?/�
N = set of nodes R = set of pipes The “Hi” test is already done in the excel table reported above. When “OK” means that the Hi is between Hmin and Hmax. While the velocity test is reported as follows:
7
All the velocities into the network’s conduits are above 0.2 m/s and below 2 m/s. So, also the velocity test is satisfied. I can proceed now with network analysis (Steady State Simulation). Inversion flow must not take place. Velocity and unit headloss should have a certain uniformity.
8
STEADY STATE SIMULATIONS
• Normal operation of the Water distribution Network. Steady- state simulation (single period) for the following water demand conditions:
1.1 Peak Hour Demand → Demand Multiplier = 34,567 = 3 1.2 Minimum Hour Demand → Demand Multiplier = 34,5#8 = 0.3 1.3 Average Demand → Demand Multiplier = 1
1.1 - Peak Hour Demand → Demand Multiplier = CD,EFG = H (*already previously verified, as
follows).
Node n zground Hbuild,max f Hmin Hmax tot head test
1 65,5 26,9 5 97,4 133,7 120,99 OK
2 63,7 16,7 5 85,4 131,9 114,64 OK
3 62,3 30,3 5 97,6 130,5 111,59 OK
4 61,9 18,2 5 85,1 130,1 106,93 OK
5 60,4 34,1 5 99,5 128,6 105,02 OK
6 64,9 26,8 5 96,7 133,1 105,15 OK
7 67,3 17,5 5 89,8 135,5 107,26 OK
8 65,5 12,1 5 82,6 133,7 113,5 OK
9 65,6 26,8 5 97,4 133,8 117,97 OK
10 63,8 29,7 5 98,5 132 118,81 OK
11 62,8 33,4 5 101,2 131 114,28 OK
12 61,5 19,2 5 85,7 129,7 106,34 OK
13 60,3 23,6 5 88,9 128,5 105,79 OK
14 61 15,1 5 81,1 129,2 107,69 OK
15 62,4 33,5 5 100,9 130,6 111 OK
16 63 17,7 5 85,7 131,2 114,14 OK
17 65,2 30,6 5 100,8 133,4 119,45 OK
18 63,4 30,2 5 98,6 131,6 117,58 OK
19 61 30,6 5 96,6 129,2 108,63 OK
20 61,2 34 5 100,2 129,4 108,23 OK
21 61,5 26,8 5 93,3 129,7 106,88 OK
22 62,7 27,7 5 95,4 130,9 109,1 OK
23 61,4 24,3 5 90,7 129,6 110,31 OK
24 66,5 21,1 5 92,6 134,7 111,58 OK
25 63,6 11,8 5 80,4 131,8 111,97 OK
26 62,1 33,9 5 101 130,3 113,07 OK
27 62,4 17,1 5 84,5 130,6 115,12 OK
28 65,8 10,9 5 81,7 134 115,23 OK
29 63,9 17,1 5 86 132,1 115,53 OK
30 64,1 15,4 5 84,5 132,3 116,16 OK
31 64,1 30,6 5 99,7 132,3 120,45 OK
32 63,9 23,6 5 92,5 132,1 117,94 OK
33 64,6 29,4 5 99 132,8 119,29 OK
34 64,7 17,9 5 87,6 132,9 119,78 OK
35 64,9 16,5 5 86,4 133,1 117,84 OK
36 66 21,4 5 92,4 134,2 118,71 OK
9
All criteria are satisfied.
10
1.2 - Minimum Hour Demand → Demand Multiplier = CD,EIJ = K. H
Node n H ᷂ ᷂ Hmin Hmax test
1 121 97,4 133,7 OK
2 120,91 85,4 131,9 OK
3 120,87 97,6 130,5 OK
4 120,8 85,1 130,1 OK
5 120,78 99,5 128,6 OK
6 120,78 96,7 133,1 OK
7 120,81 89,8 135,5 OK
8 120,89 82,6 133,7 OK
9 120,96 97,4 133,8 OK
10 120,97 98,5 132 OK
11 120,91 101,2 131 OK
12 120,79 85,7 129,7 OK
13 120,79 88,9 128,5 OK
14 120,81 81,1 129,2 OK
15 120,86 100,9 130,6 OK
16 120,9 85,7 131,2 OK
17 120,98 100,8 133,4 OK
18 120,95 98,6 131,6 OK
19 120,83 96,6 129,2 OK
20 120,82 100,2 129,4 OK
21 120,8 93,3 129,7 OK
22 120,83 95,4 130,9 OK
23 120,85 90,7 129,6 OK
24 120,87 92,6 134,7 OK
25 120,89 80,4 131,8 OK
26 120,92 101 130,3 OK
27 120,92 84,5 130,6 OK
28 120,92 81,7 134 OK
29 120,93 86 132,1 OK
30 120,99 84,5 132,3 OK
31 120,96 99,7 132,3 OK
32 120,98 92,5 132,1 OK
33 120,98 99 132,8 OK
34 120,96 87,6 132,9 OK
35 120,97 86,4 133,1 OK
36 120,95 92,4 134,2 OK
From the previous table collected on Excel it’s immediate to understand that all the Head verifies are satisfied but from the following picture comes that none velocity is verified (every velocity is below the minimum velocity limit: 0.2 [m/s]
11
All the Head are met but none Velocity is met.
12
1.3 - Average Demand → Demand Multiplier = L
Node n H ᷂ ᷂ Hmin Hmax test
1 121 97,4 133,7 OK
2 120,17 85,4 131,9 OK
3 119,77 97,6 130,5 OK
4 119,16 85,1 130,1 OK
5 118,91 99,5 128,6 OK
6 118,93 96,7 133,1 OK
7 119,2 89,8 135,5 OK
8 120,02 82,6 133,7 OK
9 120,6 97,4 133,8 OK
10 120,71 98,5 132 OK
11 120,12 101,2 131 OK
12 119,08 85,7 129,7 OK
13 119,01 88,9 128,5 OK
14 119,26 81,1 129,2 OK
15 119,69 100,9 130,6 OK
16 120,1 85,7 131,2 OK
17 120,8 100,8 133,4 OK
18 120,55 98,6 131,6 OK
19 119,38 96,6 129,2 OK
20 119,82 100,2 129,4 OK
21 119.96 93,3 129,7 OK
22 120,23 95,4 130,9 OK
23 120,25 90,7 129,6 OK
24 120,29 92,6 134,7 OK
25 120,37 80,4 131,8 OK
26 120,93 101 130,3 OK
27 120,6 84,5 130,6 OK
28 120,78 81,7 134 OK
29 120,84 86 132,1 OK
30 120,59 84,5 132,3 OK
31 120,7 99,7 132,3 OK
32 120,46 92,5 132,1 OK
33 120,32 99 132,8 OK
34 120,1 87,6 132,9 OK
35 120,38 86,4 133,1 OK
36 120,81 92,4 134,2 OK
Also for the Average demand multiplier (equal to 1) all the Heads are verified. The following picture reports which pipes do not satisfy the velocity test (that is, the ones which has velocity below the minimum velocity limit: 0.2 [m/s]):
13
The pipes that don’ t satisfy the velocity test are: 5 – 6 – 40 – 41 – 42 – 47 – 50 .
14
• Breakdown of a pipe in the Water distribution Network: Steady- state simulation (single period) for the average water demand conditions. I must choose to “Close” three main pipes in my network and analyze the consequences of these out-of-service pipes. (Considering one break at a time):
A. – Break Pipe number 1
B. – Break Pipe number 13
C. – Break Pipe number 15
Pipe in which there is the breakdown → Status: Closed.
Pipe n. 1
Pipe n. 13
Pipe n. 15
15
A. – Break Pipe number 1:
Node n Head Pressure Hmin Hmax test
1 120,86 55,71 97,4 133,7 OK
2 116,99 52,59 85,4 131,9 OK
3 116,99 53,64 97,6 130,5 OK
4 116,99 54,49 85,1 130,1 OK
5 117,16 55,92 99,5 128,6 OK
6 117,75 53,35 96,7 133,1 OK
7 118,32 50,42 89,8 135,5 OK
8 119,5 53 82,6 133,7 OK
9 120,73 54,22 97,4 133,8 OK
10 119,42 56,16 98,5 132 OK
11 117,28 55,72 101,2 131 OK
12 117,32 54,64 85,7 129,7 OK
13 118,12 55,42 88,9 128,5 OK
14 118,92 55,52 81,1 129,2 OK
15 119,56 55,42 100,9 130,6 OK
16 116,98 55,26 85,7 131,2 OK
17 118,98 51,48 100,8 133,4 OK
18 118,27 54,88 98,6 131,6 OK
19 118,09 55,37 96,6 129,2 OK
20 118,62 55,44 100,2 129,4 OK
21 118,9 55,29 93,3 129,7 OK
22 119,18 54,72 95,4 130,9 OK
23 119,21 54,7 90,7 129,6 OK
24 119,26 52,68 92,6 134,7 OK
25 119,72 54,81 80,4 131,8 OK
26 119,78 55,86 101 130,3 OK
27 119,83 55,82 84,5 130,6 OK
28 119,94 54,13 81,7 134 OK
29 120,74 55,33 86 132,1 OK
30 120,22 55,84 84,5 132,3 OK
31 120,52 56,34 99,7 132,3 OK
32 120,62 56,02 92,5 132,1 OK
33 120,3 55,92 99 132,8 OK
34 120,49 55,92 87,6 132,9 OK
35 119,76 54,87 86,4 133,1 OK
36 119,96 54,59 92,4 134,2 OK
All the Heads in every node are verified within the limits.
16
Some velocities in some pipes are not placed within the minimum and maximum limit. Those pipes are: 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 41 – 42 – 50. (The 1 pipe is the broken one). (Vmin has not to be considered at this stage). It’s very important to say that the we’ve checked that “red conduits” do not overtake the maximum velocity limit: 2 [m/s].
B.– Break Pipe number 13:
We can immediately see that all the Heads at nodes are within the Head’s limits (maxcase of pipe 13 as a broken pipe.
We can immediately see that all the Heads at nodes are within the Head’s limits (max
17
We can immediately see that all the Heads at nodes are within the Head’s limits (max. and min.), in
18
Now, let’s check the velocities for each pipe.
It’s immediate to see how the break of Pipe 13 causes 9 non-verified velocities on pipes under the minimum velocity limit. (Vmin has not to be considered at this stage). It’s very important to say that the we’ve checked that “red conduits” do not overtake the maximum velocity limit: 2 [m/s].
B. – Break Pipe number 15:
Break Pipe number 15:
19
20
Even for the breakdown of Pipe 15 all the Heads for each node are verified (within their own max. and min. Head).
Even in the case of Pipe 15 breakdown, 9 velocities of 9 conduits are below the minimum velocity limit. (Vmin has not to be considered at this stage). It’s very important to say that the we’ve checked that “red conduits” do not overtake the maximum velocity limit: 2 [m/s].
21
• Fire Condition in Water distribution Network: Two fire conditions are considered: fire in correspondence of the node with grater population (Maximum Base Demand) and fire in the node of the network faraway to the reservoir.
Steady –state simulation (single period) for the average water demand condition → Demand Multiplier = 1. Two fire condition are considered, fire in correspondence of :
A. Node number 17: the node with great population;
B. Node number 6: the node of the network faraway to the reservoir.
Fire flow is valuated with the formula of Conti: M# = 6√� Where P in the population express in thousands of inhabitants. Fire M# is added to the Base Demand of the node.
A. Fire Condition in Node 17: the most populated node:
All the Heads are verified in case of Fire Condition in the most populated node: Node 17. Now, let’s check the velocities in every conduit:
22
The pipes where is not satisfied the Velocity test in case of fire condition in Node 17 are: 5 – 6 – 40 – 41 – 42 – 47 – 50. (Vmin has not to be considered at this stage). It’s very important to say that the we’ve checked that “red conduits” do not overtake the maximum velocity limit: 2 [m/s].
23
A. Fire Condition in Node 6: the one faraway to the reservoir The Heads in each node are all verified in case of fire in Node 6: the most faraway node to the reservoir. Now let’s check the velocities in the same case:
24
Only two pipes don’t supply the minimum velocity limit in case of fire conditions at node 6: the most faraway to the reservoir. It’s very important to say that the we’ve checked that “red conduits” do not overtake the maximum velocity limit: 2 [m/s].
EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATION
In this part of the project three different simulations 1. Extended period simulation with leakage allocation;
2. Extended period simulation with leakage allocation and water age analysis;
3. Extended period simulation with
The input data are as follows: Leakage: p = 0.39 (real losses rate that is the fraction of water that is lost) emitter exponent n = 1.1 Demand Pattern:
O(�) = /(�)./
D Actual Demand BD Base Demand (users consumption + leakage) BD’= (1 – p) BD (user consumption only)
O(�)′ = /(�)./′
Chlorine parameters: Global Bulk Coeff. = - 1.2 Global Wall Coeff. = - 1.1 Source quality (reservoir) = 0.4 mg/l Inputting data into the program we obtain the following pattern:
EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATIONS
In this part of the project three different simulations have been analyzed:
Extended period simulation with leakage allocation;
Extended period simulation with leakage allocation and water age analysis;
Extended period simulation with leakage allocation and water quality analysis.
(real losses rate that is the fraction of water that is lost)
Base Demand (users consumption + leakage)
p) BD (user consumption only)
0.4 mg/l
Inputting data into the program we obtain the following pattern:
25
Extended period simulation with leakage allocation and water age analysis;
analysis.
26
Before starting the actual analysis is necessary to calculate:
QR��1 .��� /�?���: Q./ = ( ./# =)
#T*45.63
V1R��1 !��W�X�: M1 = Y � Q/. = 0.36 � 44.13 = 17.796
Z?���� OR�[[�O����: M1# = \# � Y#8 → \# = M1#Y#8
Where Y# is the average pressure at node i-th (obtain from Demand Multiplier = 1). After this I insert \# as Emitter coefficient in each node.
Node IDs Tot Length Half Length Node BD Pressure alpha ql
1 418,91 209,455 1,1371 55,85 0,005 0,441
2 657,39 328,695 1,7844 55,77 0,008 0,692
3 629,78 314,89 1,7095 56,42 0,008 0,663
4 654,79 327,395 1,7774 56,66 0,008 0,690
5 702,81 351,405 1,9077 57,67 0,009 0,740
6 682,23 341,115 1,8518 53,53 0,009 0,719
7 678,04 339,02 1,8405 51,3 0,009 0,714
8 424,68 212,34 1,1528 53,52 0,006 0,447
9 411,97 205,985 1,1183 54,6 0,005 0,434
10 462,16 231,08 1,2545 56,54 0,006 0,487
11 590,27 295,135 1,6022 56,42 0,007 0,622
12 356,45 178,225 0,9675 54,44 0,005 0,375
13 393,59 196,795 1,0684 57,11 0,005 0,415
14 214,9 107,45 0,5833 56,66 0,003 0,226
15 486,29 243,145 1,3200 56,19 0,006 0,512
16 500,4 250,2 1,3583 55,8 0,006 0,527
17 742,04 371,02 2,0142 55,3 0,009 0,782
18 481,53 240,765 1,3071 56,45 0,006 0,507
19 510,38 255,19 1,3854 56,48 0,006 0,538
20 394,24 197,12 1,0701 56,51 0,005 0,415
21 422,85 211,425 1,1478 56,35 0,005 0,445
22 673,16 336,58 1,8272 55,54 0,009 0,709
23 389,83 194,915 1,0582 55,4 0,005 0,411
24 544,74 272,37 1,4786 52,27 0,007 0,574
25 304,86 152,43 0,8275 55,42 0,004 0,321
26 377,39 188,695 1,0244 56,56 0,005 0,397
27 358,06 179,03 0,9719 56,33 0,004 0,377
28 469,43 234,715 1,2742 54,6 0,006 0,494
29 556,82 278,41 1,5114 55,79 0,007 0,586
30 300,75 150,375 0,8164 56,27 0,004 0,317
31 316,76 158,38 0,8598 56,53 0,004 0,334
32 272,76 136,38 0,7404 56,4 0,003 0,287
33 394,23 197,115 1,0701 56,18 0,005 0,415
34 260,34 130,17 0,7067 56,14 0,003 0,274
27
35 368,81 184,405 1,0011 55,16 0,005 0,388
36 406,08 203,04 1,1023 54,8 0,005 0,428
TOTAL TOT. BD 45,6283
1 - EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATION WITH LEAKAGE ALLOCATION:
Demand Multiplier = 0.61 Emitter exponent = 1.1
Total Duration= 24:00 h Hydraulic Time Step = 1:00 h
1.1 - Graph with velocity versus all pipes at some particular time.
Velocities in each conduit at 7:00 AM
28
Velocities in each conduit at 8:00 PM
Total Heads for each node at 7:00 AM
Total Heads for each node at 7:00 AM
29
Total Head for each node at 8:00 PM
Total Head for each node at 8:00 PM
30
31
The velocity changes according to the demand; in fact, during the night (low demand) we obtained low speeds (0.10 ÷ 0.30 m/s), but at eight o’clock in the morning, when we have peak demand day, the higher speeds are three times the lower ones (0.30 ÷ 0.90 m/s). 1.2 - Table with hydraulic head versus all nodes at some particular time
Node n Head at 7:00 Head at 20:00
1 120,74 120,79
2 119,17 119,52
3 118,4 118,9
4 117,23 117,95
5 116,74 117,55
6 116,77 117,58
7 117,29 118
8 118,78 119,2
9 119,82 120,05
10 120,2 120,35
11 119,06 119,43
12 117,07 117,82
13 116,93 117,71
14 117,4 118,09
15 118,21 118,75
16 118,97 119,36
17 120,36 120,49
18 119,89 120,11
19 117,65 118,29
20 117,54 118,21
21 117,2 117,93
22 117,74 118,36
23 118,02 118,6
24 118,32 118,83
25 118,43 118,93
26 118,74 119,18
27 119,24 119,58
28 119,19 119,54
29 119,3 119,63
30 119,45 119,74
31 120,61 120,69
32 119,97 120,17
33 120,31 120,44
34 120,44 120,55
35 119,95 120,15
36 120,21 120,36
From the values in this table we can find the relation that exists between the speed and the head.
32
1.3 - Graph with velocity V versus time for some selected pipes.
Here you can see in detail what was stated in paragraph 1.1, namely that the velocity of the water varies throughout the day according to demand. 1.4 - Graph with hydraulic head H versus time for some nodes
For example, comparing the speed and the head at 8.00 am is well known that when the demand for water increases, there is a parallel increase in speed and decrease in head. Then the two graphs (1.3 and 1.4) will be one the opposite of the other.
33
1.5 – Graph frequency plot (value of V for pipe or H for node versus fraction not exceeding the
value)
Frequency graph gives us the speed distribution as a percentage. For example if we look we see that the graph of 4.00 am in 95% of the water pipe has a velocity of about 0.28 m/s, but at 8.00 am in 95% of the water pipe has a velocity of about 0.85 m/s. We see that within 24 hours, the speed changes in all the pipes.
34
Same thing for the distribution of the head. See for example, that at 4.00 am to 50% of the pipes has a head of 118.15 m, while at 8.00 am, 50% of the pipes has a head of about 116.5 m.
35
2 - EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATION WITH LEAKAGE ALLOCATION AND WATER
AGE ANALYSIS.
For this analysis we consider the second 24 hours. 2.1 – Table with Water Age versus all nodes at some particular time
Water Age analysis at 31:00 hours
36
Water age analysis at 44:00 hrs
In this pictures we can see how long it takes water from the reservoir to reach the various node at
certain hours. And we can see that the growth in demand less time spent using the water to reach the
various nodes.
37
2.2 – Graph with Water Age versus time for some nodes
In these graph we can see how much water takes to get to node during the different hours of the day.
2.3 – Graph frequency plot (value of Water Age for node versus fraction not exceeding the value)
38
Here we observe at certain hours, how long it takes water to each a percentage of the nodes. For example at 28.00 am per hour to reach 60% of the nodes, while at 32.00 am per hour to reach 93% of the nodes. 2.4 – Contour plot some instant of Water Ages. Here we see graphically how long does the water take to reach the different nodes of the network during the different hours of the day.
3 - EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATION WITH LEAKAGE ALLOCATION AND WATER
QUALITY ANALYSIS.
3.1 Pictures with Chlorine concentration versus all nodes at some particular time.
• Chlorine Concentration at 32:00 hrs
EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATION WITH LEAKAGE ALLOCATION AND WATER
hlorine concentration versus all nodes at some particular time.
Chlorine Concentration at 32:00 hrs
39
EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATION WITH LEAKAGE ALLOCATION AND WATER
hlorine concentration versus all nodes at some particular time.
• Chlorine concentration at 44:00 hrs
Chlorine concentration at 44:00 hrs
40
41
This pictures provides us with the chlorine levels in the nodes during the different hours of the day,
the level of chlorine increases with the passing of the day.
3.2 – Graph with Chlorine concentration versus time for some nodes
This is the distribution of the concentration level of chlorine knowing that the reservoir was given as a value of 0.4 mg/l. In all nodes is lower during the night and higher during the day. 3.3 – Graph frequency plot (value of Chlorine concentration for node versus fraction not exceeding
the value)
42
We see the percentage distribution of chlorine at different times of the day.
43
3.4 – Contour plot for some instant of Chlorine concentration. This is the distribution of chlorine levels during the different hours of the day.
Chlorine concentration levels at
32:00 hrs
Chlorine concentration levels at
28:00 hrs
Chlorine concentration levels at
44:00 hrs
Chlorine concentration levels at
47:00 hrs
44
CONCLUSIONS: I had considered important to conclude the project in terms of costs. As I have reported at the beginning, (first table) the pipe cost and consequently the final sum is:
Pipe ID Length (m) Diam Unit Cost €/m Cost €
1 132,76 150 39,4 5230,744
2 374,68 125 37 13863,16
3 119,74 100 27,2 3256,928
4 312,72 100 27,2 8505,984
5 289,09 60 19,8 5723,982
6 336,33 60 19,8 6659,334
7 135,81 60 19,8 2689,038
8 201,26 60 19,8 3984,948
9 132,53 100 27,2 3604,816
10 144,66 125 37 5352,42
11 175,72 125 37 6501,64
12 112,17 200 54,4 6102,048
13 210,74 200 54,4 11464,256
14 75,41 250 72,9 5497,389
15 181,42 200 54,4 9869,248
16 146,96 125 37 5437,52
17 162,69 80 24,5 3985,905
18 99,64 60 19,8 1972,872
19 52,98 60 19,8 1049,004
20 162,97 60 19,8 3226,806
21 83,96 80 24,5 2057,02
22 49,82 100 27,2 1355,104
23 78,5 100 27,2 2135,2
24 99,27 100 27,2 2700,144
25 82,29 80 24,5 2016,105
26 147,49 60 19,8 2920,302
27 197,32 60 19,8 3906,936
28 83,3 100 27,2 2265,76
29 113,8 100 27,2 3095,36
30 80,82 100 27,2 2198,304
31 340,97 100 27,2 9274,384
32 77,39 80 24,5 1896,055
33 112,37 80 24,5 2753,065
34 37,34 100 27,2 1015,648
35 108,85 100 27,2 2960,72
36 182,82 125 37 6764,34
37 136,02 150 39,4 5359,188
38 56,7 150 39,4 2233,98
39 124,08 125 37 4590,96
40 234,6 60 19,8 4645,08
41 203,83 80 24,5 4993,835
42 248,05 60 19,8 4911,39
43 65,19 60 19,8 1290,762
44 210,09 80 24,5 5147,205
45 147,57 80 24,5 3615,465
46 103,8 80 24,5 2543,1
47 210,95 60 19,8 4176,81
48 75,08 80 24,5 1839,46
49 180,29 80 24,5 4417,105
50 149,05 80 24,5 3651,725
45
51 215,05 80 24,5 5268,725
52 144,44 100 27,2 3928,768
53 34,74 125 37 1285,38
54 59,93 150 39,4 2361,242
55 165,67 80 24,5 4058,915
56 119,97 100 27,2 3263,184
57 83,17 100 27,2 2262,224
58 1 300 90,7 90,7
TOTAL 8405,86 TOT. COST 239.228 €
The previous table is based on the following costs’ list:
Cost Table
D (mm) €/m
60 19,8
80 24,5
100 27,2
125 37
150 39,4
200 54,4
250 72,9
300 90,7
Now, is reported the whole amount of the project due to: valves (2 for pipe), Cutting Asfalt, Excavation, Supply and installation of polyethylene pipe, with PN 16 including fittings and covering with sand, Backfilling with gravel, Base layer, binder layer and wear layer of asphalt:
ARTICLE JOB
DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY
UNIT
PRICE TOTAL
000 Cleaning the proposed site from all dirt or any un-required top soil up to 25cm and leveling the site, all according to drawings, specifications, conditions and directed instructions by the engineer.
L.S. 1,00 17694,00 106945,00
46
001 Cutting Asfalt. 0,60 x 8.302,00
m² 4992,08 5,00 24960,40
002
Excavation. The item also includes the demolition and transport a refusal of the asphalt. 0,60 x 2,00 x 8320,13
m³ 9984,17 15,00 149762,55
003 Supply and installation of polyethylene pipe, with PN 16, including fittings and covering with sand. With the following diameters:
a Ø 60 ml. 2381,70 19,80 47157,66
b Ø 80 ml. 1969,13 24,50 48243,69
c Ø 100 ml. 1905,24 27,20 51822,53
d Ø 125 ml. 1183,66 37,00 43795,42
e Ø 150 ml. 385,66 39,40 15195,00
f Ø 200 ml. 504,33 54,40 27435,55
g Ø 250 ml. 75,41 72,90 5497,39
h Ø 300 ml. 1,00 90,70 90,70
004 Supply and installation of valves, with following diameters:
a Ø 60 cad. 26 200,00 5200,00
b Ø 80 cad. 28 250,00 7000,00
c Ø 100 cad. 30 313,00 9390,00
d Ø 125 cad. 14 386,00 5404,00
e Ø 150 cad. 8 459,00 3672,00
f Ø 200 cad. 6 530,00 3180,00
g Ø 250 cad. 2 850,00 1700,00
h Ø 300 cad. 1 1000,00 1000,00
005 Backfilling with gravel. 0,60 x 1,20 x 8320,13
m³ 5990,49 35,00 209667,15
006 Asphalt. Base layer. 0,60 x 0,15 x 8320,13
m³ 748,81 40,00 29952,40
007 Asphalt. Binder. 0,60 x 0,07 x 8320,13
m³ 349,45 150,00 52417,50
008 Asphalt. Wear layer. 0,60 x 8320,13
m² 4992,08 16,50 82369,32
TOTAL EURO 931858,26
![Saint Lucia Water Supply Infrastructure Improvement Project · 2016-07-17 · Saint Lucia Water Supply Infrastructure Improvement Project ]March 25, 2005 ... distribution of raw water](https://static.fdocuments.us/doc/165x107/5b3dd4f47f8b9ace408e5596/saint-lucia-water-supply-infrastructure-improvement-project-2016-07-17-saint.jpg)
