Professional Documents
Culture Documents
010 Thornton and Lambert 2007 Bucharest1
010 Thornton and Lambert 2007 Bucharest1
010 Thornton and Lambert 2007 Bucharest1
Julian Thornton
Allan Lambert
IWA Water Loss Task Force
IWA WLTF Definition of
pressure management
The practice of managing system pressures to
the optimum levels of service - ensuring
sufficient and efficient supply to legitimate
uses while:
reducing unwanted demands or theft
eliminating transients and faulty level controls
eliminating variations due to changing head loss
reducing unnecessary or excess pressures
all of which cause the system to fail at high
frequencies with high volumes
Water 21 articles
The first place to start
P r e s s u re
M anagem ent
U n a v o id a b le
R eal Loss
Im p ro v e d
P ro a c tiv e
Leak E c o n o m ic
Leak
R e p a ir L e ve l
D e te c tio n
T im e R eal Loss
C u rr e n t A n n u a l R e a l
L o s s V o lu m e
In f ra s tr u c tu re
M anagem ent
Leaks occur at system weak spots
modulate to the weak spots
90%
10%
Predicting pressure management
payback periods
Despite many success stories, it is still
necessary to prioritise and predict paybacks
on case-by-case basis
Predictions of changes in leak flow rates and
consumption are now quite reliable
using FAVAD N1 and N3 approach
Financial benefits of reduced break
frequency are generally much larger
but reliable prediction method is not yet available
FAVAD N2 approach is now known to be incorrect
a practical conceptual approach is now being tested
Latest
Number of Assessed Average % Average
Pressure initial reduction %
Water Utility or Mains (M) or
Country Managed maximum in reduction
System Services (S)
Sectors in pressure maximum in new
pressure:
study (metres) pressure breaks
Brisbane 1 100 35% 28% M,S
60% M
Australia Gold Coast 10 60-90 50%
70% S
Yarra Valley 4 100 30% 28% M
breaks data
Bahamas New Providence 7 39 34% 40% M,S
Bosnia 59% M
Gracanica 3 50 20%
Herzegovin 72% S
58% M
analysis:
Caesb 2 70 33%
24% S
Sabesp ROP 1 40 30% 38% M
80% M
Sabesp MO 1 58 65%
29% S
Brazil 64% M
Sabesp MS 1 23 30%
64% S
50% M
SANASA 1 50 70%
50% S
112
30% M
Sanepar 7 45 30%
70% S
23% M
Canada Halifax 1 56 18%
23% S
Systems
50% M
Armenia 25 100 33%
50% S
Colombia
Palmira 5 80 75% 94% M,S
Bogot 2 55 30% 31% S
45% M
from 10
Cyprus Lemesos 7 52.5 32%
40% S
25% M
Bristol Water 21 62 39%
45% S
England
72% M
United Utilities 10 47.6 32%
countries
75% S
Torino 1 69 10% 45% M,S
Italy
Umbra 1 130 39% 71% M,S
USA American Water 1 199 36% 50% M
Total number of systems 112
Maximum 199 75% 94% All data
Minimum 23 10% 23% All data
Median 57 33.0% 50.0% All data
Average 71 38.0% 52.5% M&S together
Average 36.5% 48.8% Mains only
Average 37.1% 49.5% Services only
Simple statistical approach
FAILURE
RATE NEW
NEW PIPES,
PIPES,
GRAVITY
GRAVITY SYSTEM
SYSTEM
FAILURE
RATE NEW PIPES,
ENT
N
ING
SIO
FAILURE
VEM
E
COMBINATION OF FACTORS
OAD
RATE
RO
TUR
MO
OR
C L
ERA
CAUSES INCREASED
ND
+C
FFI
OU
P
TEM
AGE
TRA
FAILURE RATE
GR
BOOM !!!
RES
ENT
N
DIN
ATU
SIO
FAILURE
VEM
RATE STEP 1: REDUCE SURGES
OA
PER
RRO
MO
C L
TEM
+ CO
ND
FFI
U
LOW
GRO
TRA
AGE
PRESSURE
Reduce excess pressure
Next, identify if the stabilized pressures at the critical point are
higher than necessary; if so, reduce the excess
to avoid operating system at its failure pressure
RES
ENT
N
DIN
ATU
SIO
FAILURE
VEM
RATE STEP 2: REDUCE
OA
PER
RRO
MO
EXCESS PRESSURE
C L
TEM
+ CO
ND
FFI
U
LOW
GRO
TRA
AGE
Operating range PRESSURE
What to expect?
If the current failure rate is comparatively high (red circle), then quite a
small % reduction in pressure (to the blue circle) may produce a large
reduction in burst frequency. But if the burst frequency is already quite
low (blue circle), further pressure reductions may not greatly reduce
the current burst frequency, but may extend infrastructure life
FAILURE
RATE
PRESSURE
Testing the conceptual approach
This latest concept has so far been tested on data from
Halifax (Canada), Lemesos (Cyprus), and Wide Bay Water
(Australia)
Initial break frequencies are expressed as a multiple of
break frequencies used in the Unavoidable Annual Real
Losses (UARL) formula
13 mains breaks/100 km mains/year
3 service breaks/1000 conns/year (main to property line)
13 breaks/100 km of pipe/year (after property line)
If initial break frequency ratio is low (blue circle), %
reduction in breaks is expected to be zero or very small
If initial break frequency ratio is high (red point), %
reduction in breaks is expected to be significant
Comparisons so far
Break
Mains or Initial Break
Utility Frequency
Services Frequency Ratio
Factor BFF
Mains 1 0
Wide Bay Water
Services 12 4
Mains 3 2.5
Halifax
Services 0.5 0
Mains 3 1.4
Lemesos
Services 11 1.3
In 2 cases where Initial Break Frequency Ratio was low (close to or less than
1, blue circle), no significant reduction in break frequency occurred (BFF =0)
In 4 cases where Initial Break Frequency Ratio was 3 or more (red circle),
significant reductions in break frequency (BFF 1.3 to 4 x % pressure reduction)
Research into individual case studies continues, with the objective of testing and
trying to improve predictions of reductions in break frequencies using this approach
Philadelphia USA - case study
83 kilometres of main
9,000 connections
36,000 population
Elevations of 725 metres to 761
metres above sea level
Pumped supply from a booster station
Field installation
Critical point variation -
improved
30
25.1
25
20
17.0
15 to 22 m
PRESSURE (m)
6 mWc
15
10 11.0
6.2
5
0
12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00
TIME
Santa Amaro summary
Valve diameter: 450 mm
Night time average pressure reduction:
25m to 15 m
Critical point pressure variation reduced 15
to 6 m
Volume savings: 40 l/sec
New breaks reduced by approximately
50%!
Project cost US $200,000
Annual estimated savings on volume alone
US$600,000
Project pay back 3 months!
Summary
Pressure management works!
Reduces leak flow rates (predict using N1)
Reduces some parts of consumption (predict using N3)
Reduces unnecessary energy use
Reduces break frequency (prediction being developed)
Extends infrastructure life
If you would like to share an experience please contact
Julian Thornton thornton@water-audit.com
Allan Lambert allanlambert@leakssuite.com
Thank you