Technion – Israel Institute of Technology

Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering

ISE – International School of Engineering
014208 – Design Principles of Water Supply Systems

Final Project for Spring 2011/2012

Instructor and Advisor: Jeremy Blank

Submitted by:
Levi Frolich - 332378413
Ari Teger – 327130605
Submitted on: 07/08/2012

1
Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 6
Objective ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Major Constraints ..................................................................................................................................... 6
Methodology............................................................................................................................................. 6
Major Reference Sources .......................................................................................................................... 6
Design Criteria ........................................................................................................................................... 6
Climate ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Topography ............................................................................................................................................... 7
Water Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Coastal Aquifer ...................................................................................................................................... 8
Desalination Plants................................................................................................................................ 8
Regulations ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Storage Regulations .................................................................................................................................. 8
Water Quality and Treatment ................................................................................................................... 9
Pressure Regulations................................................................................................................................. 9
Pipe Thickness ........................................................................................................................................... 9
Usage and Population Projection ............................................................................................................... 10
Example Calculation of Projected Water Demand ................................................................................. 10
Design Flow Parameters ............................................................................................................................. 10
Design Flow for Monthly and Daily Demand .......................................................................................... 10
Design Flow for Hourly Demand ............................................................................................................. 10
Design (Peak) Flows ................................................................................................................................ 11
Example Calculation of Hourly Design Flow........................................................................................ 11
Water Balance and Tank Level .................................................................................................................... 11
Daily Demand .......................................................................................................................................... 11
Example Calculation of Daily Design Demand for Water Balance ...................................................... 11
Hourly Demand ....................................................................................................................................... 12
Hourly Supply .......................................................................................................................................... 12
Water Level ............................................................................................................................................. 12
Example water balance chart: ............................................................................................................ 12
Costs ............................................................................................................................................................ 13

2
 Energy Costs ............................................................................................................................................ 13
Costs of Physical Items ............................................................................................................................ 14
Water Costs ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Specifics for the Project .............................................................................................................................. 15
Background ............................................................................................................................................. 15
Yavne ................................................................................................................................................... 16
Ben Zakai ............................................................................................................................................. 16
Kevutzat Yavne .................................................................................................................................... 17
Beit Gamliel ......................................................................................................................................... 17
Population and Water Usage Predictions ................................................................................................... 18
Yavne ....................................................................................................................................................... 18
Population Prediction ......................................................................................................................... 18
Water Demand Prediction .................................................................................................................. 18
Design Flow ......................................................................................................................................... 18
Ben Zakai ................................................................................................................................................. 18
Population Growth Prediction ............................................................................................................ 18
Water Demand Prediction .................................................................................................................. 19
Design Flow ......................................................................................................................................... 19
Kevutzat Yavne ........................................................................................................................................ 19
Population Prediction ......................................................................................................................... 19
Water Demand Prediction .................................................................................................................. 19
Design Flow ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Beit Gamliel ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Population Growth Prediction ............................................................................................................ 20
Water Demand Prediction .................................................................................................................. 20
Design Flow ......................................................................................................................................... 20
Summary of Settlement Information ...................................................................................................... 21
Demographic and Topographical Information.................................................................................... 21
Annual Water Demand in m3/year ..................................................................................................... 21
Peak Daily Demand Projection for 2045 (for water balance) in m3/day............................................. 21
Peak Hourly Demand Projection for 2045 (for design) in m3/hour .................................................... 21
Design Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 21

3
 Alternative 1—Base Alternative ............................................................................................................. 23
Alternative 2............................................................................................................................................ 25
Alternative 3............................................................................................................................................ 27
Alternative 4............................................................................................................................................ 29
Comparison of Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 31
Comparison Results ................................................................................................................................ 31
Comparison Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 33
The Recommended Alternative .................................................................................................................. 33
Route ....................................................................................................................................................... 34
Block Diagram ......................................................................................................................................... 35
Pipe Diameters ........................................................................................................................................ 36
Pipe Thickness ......................................................................................................................................... 36
Design Stages .......................................................................................................................................... 36
Costs ........................................................................................................................................................ 37
Longitudinal Cross Section and Piezometric Head Analysis.................................................................... 40
Pipe 1................................................................................................................................................... 40
Pipe 2................................................................................................................................................... 41
Pipe 3a................................................................................................................................................. 41
Pipe 3b ................................................................................................................................................ 42
Pipe 3c ................................................................................................................................................. 43
Water Balance and Reservoir/Tank Level Graphs .................................................................................. 43
Reservoir 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 44
Reservoir 2 .......................................................................................................................................... 45
Tank 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 46
Tank 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Tank 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 48
Resistance Curves ................................................................................................................................... 48
Bill of Quantities...................................................................................................................................... 50
Annual Cost Breakdown .......................................................................................................................... 51
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 52
Linear Programming System Solution ..................................................................................................... 52
Full Water Balance for Recommended Alternative ................................................................................ 56

4
Reservoir 1 .......................................................................................................................................... 56
Tank 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 57
Tank 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 58
Tank 3 .................................................................................................................................................. 59

5
Introduction

Objective
The purpose of this project is to design a water supply network that provides suitable water in the most
economical and robust way to the various sectors (private, industrial and agricultural) of the following
four settlements: Yavne, Kevuztat Yavne, Ben Zakai and Ben Gamliel.

Major Constraints
The following are major considerations that must be taken into account in the design of the system:

1) Existing water sources in the area which include the desalination plant in Ashdod and
Palmachim and coastal aquifer wells
2) The geographical and topographical nature of the area
3) The projected population growth and land use for the next 35 years
4) The required water quality and other regulations as demanded by the law
5) The network includes both supply to consumers and reservoirs for storage
6) The typical pipe size diameters available on the market and other cost considerations like
pumps, energy costs, etc.

Methodology
1) Collecting of data from governmental and non-governmental sources
2) Contacting representatives from each settlement to fill in missing information and supplement
gathered data from the field
3) Processing the data to fully understand the design problem
4) Offering multiple alternative solutions to the problem
5) Performing a full hydraulic and economic analysis of the solutions and recommending the best
alternative

Major Reference Sources

1) CBS
2) Wikipedia
3) Contact people and websites for each yishuv
4) Mekorot and IEC
5) Course notes and consultation with course advisor
6) Israel Meteorological Society
7) Google Maps and Google Earth
8) Amudanan.co.il

Design Criteria
 Design year: 2015 (Systems operational)
 Design period: 30 years
 Pumping Units Efficiency: 80%
 Interest Rate: 5%

6
Climate
All of our settlements share the climate of the center of Israel. In general, Israel has a Mediterranean
climate characterized by long, hot, dry summers and short, cool, rainy winters, as modified locally by
altitude and latitude. The climate is determined by Israel's location between the subtropical arid
characteristic of Egypt and the subtropical humidity of the Levant or eastern Mediterranean. The semi-
arid center receives more rainfall than the south but less than the north1. The humidity is fairly high
during the summer and the temperatures range between averages of 10 degrees Celsius to 30 degrees
Celcius. Rainfall ranges between 0mm and about 125 mm2.

Average Daily Maximum and Minimum Temperature

[C]
40
Temperature [C]

30
20 Average Daily Maximum
Temperature [C]
10
Average Daily Minimum
0 Temperature [C]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month

Average Monthly Rainfall [mm]

200
Rainfall [mm]

100
0 Average Monthly Rainfall [mm]
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Month

Topography
The shfela region containing all of the settlements under investigation is the transitional region between
Israel’s central hills and the coastal plain. Our settlements are in the western part of the region closer to
the coastal plain. The elevations range from 20 m above sea level to 60 m above sea level. The Ashdod
desalination plant is on the coast, and therefore at sea level. The topography allows for a relatively easy
laying of pipes, in that there are no vast land obstacles to traverse (eg. deep valleys, high mountains,
etc). The landscape has a gentle upwards slope but is relatively smooth so the water must be pumped
more than just the minimum head and dynamic losses but there is no need to dig tunnels or pump
excessively just to overcome topographical difficulties.

1
US Library of Congress: http://countrystudies.us/israel/36.htm
2
Israel Meteorological Service: http://ims.gov.il/IMS/CLIMATE

7
Water Sources
Coastal Aquifer
All four settlements are located above the coastal aquifer3, which is a major source of water in
the Shfela region. The aquifer extends from the foothills of the Carmel in the north to the north of the
Sinai Desert in the South. Its area within the borders of Israel is 1,900 square kilometers, its length is 130
kilometers and its width ranges from 10 kilometers in the north to 30 kilometers in the south. The
aquifer is phreatic and composed of sand and sandstone. The base is made of clay and marl. In the past
the aquifer has provided between 400-600 MCM of water per year. The capacity of the aquifer is
assumed to be around 4 BCM. Over the years there has been an increase in the amount of chlorides
leaching into the aquifer, which has reached 130,000 tons per year. In addition, there is a concern that
with the increase of use of treated effluent, there has been an increase of sodium infiltration into the
aquifer.4 There are also grave concerns of overdrawing of the aquifer that will cause invasion of saline
seawater.

Desalination Plants
There are two desalination plants that could provide water to the settlements, at Palmachim
and Ashdod. Though Palmachim is close enough to be a viable option to provide water to Yavne, Ashdod
is closer to the other settlements and is about the same distance from Yavne as Palamichim.
Consequently, the decision was made to only consider supply from Ashdod, although if there was a
pressing reason, the Palmachim plant could theoretically be used.

Regulations

Storage Regulations
There are two types of regulations that were taken into consideration when the water storage
vessels were designed: storage regulations and firefighting regulations. For the storage regulations it is
necessary that each settlement has a tank or reservoir capable of storing 1/3 of the peak daily flow. For
example, Beit Gamliel is projected to have a peak daily flow of 2,737 m3. Therefore, the tank adjacent to
the settlement must hold at least:

In addition, for firefighting regulations, there must always be at least 100 m3 of water in storage at all
times of the day.

3
Weinberger, Gavriel. The Natural Water Resources Between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.
Jerusalem: Israel Hydrological Service, 2012. 35-37. Print.
4
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CEgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fol
d.sviva.gov.il%2FEnviroment%2FStatic%2FBinaries%2FArticals%2Fwater_source_1.ppt&ei=esTET9XSCPPU4QTn6Oi
PCg&usg=AFQjCNE56rK2luyp8HcfPaIBjrjkzNNbAw&sig2=Wyho1HXtSdkUZXT4Og1RMw

8
Water Quality and Treatment
Water should be supplied after being treated to make sure that it is safe, healthy and palatable.
Safety involves removing toxins, pathogens, excess salinity, or any other harmful substances. Health
requires making sure that the water contains beneficial minerals like magnesium, calcium, etc. Aquifer
water usually contains a high mineral content (sometimes too high requiring softening) but is subject to
contamination of pollutants, invasion of saline water, or pathogenic outbreaks. The treatment for this
type of water would focus on chlorination or UV disinfection and testing for pathogens and toxins.
Desalinated water membranes filter out bacteria and viruses but they also leave almost no minerals in
the supply. This is not as good for the consumer and can be harmful to the distribution network.
Treatment for desalinated water also involves (prophylactic) chlorination and the addition of beneficial
minerals. The quality requirements for palatability involve aspects like taste, turbidity, color, etc. The
exact details of treatment and the costs involved are beyond the scope of this project and course
although these costs can be significant and shouldn’t be ignored when planning a distribution system.

Pressure Regulations
A water distribution system must meet requirements for maximum and minimum pressure
head. There must be at least 30 meters of pressure head at the supply node to ensure that water will
reach the consumer even on the upper floors with enough pressure to prevent damage to the system
and water waste. Along pipes that don’t contain a supply node, 2 meters of head must be maintained to
prevent air pockets in the system. The maximum pressure allowed in the distribution system (within the
settlement itself) is 60 meters of head.

Pipe Thickness
There are two requirements for pipe thickness in a water supply system. One is for safe handling
and manufacture and one is to prevent failure in the pipe due to excessive pressure. Each requirement
has a thickness design formula, and the thickness chosen is the maximum of the two.

The handling requirement formula is:

Where:

The pressure requirement formula is:

Where:

9
The allowable stress is 50% of the yield stress of the pipe material. For a steel pipe, the yield stress is
3,656 kg/cm2.

Usage and Population Projection

Whenever possible, specific data about planned expansions were used to predict the growth of
settlements and cities examined in this project. For example, in Yavne there are public plans for new
neighborhoods with exact numbers of dwelling units to be added. In contrast, a representative in Beit
Gamliel stated explicitly that there are no plans for expansion of any kind. Even when no expansion was
planned, it was decided that the system should be designed to accommodate at least nominal growth
typical of the settlements in the area. For the settlements with no planned growth, a 4% increase for
every 10 years was applied to the current water usage and population.

Example Calculation of Projected Water Demand

The current annual water consumption in Beit Gamliel is about 608,903 m3. Using a compounded
growth formula to project the annual consumption to 2045 is done as follows:

Design Flow Parameters

Design Flow for Monthly and Daily Demand

 Average monthly water demand, Qm, is 8.3% ( ) of the annual water demand
 Average daily water demand, Qd, is 0.27% ( ) of the annual water demand

Qm max=1.32*Qm
Qd max=1.48*Qd

Design Flow for Hourly Demand

For areas with both domestic and agricultural/industrial water demand, the calculation of the
peak hourly demand must take into account the different usage patterns. Domestic use peaks in the
morning and the evening, whereas agricultural/industrial use is constant throughout the work hours.
Therefore, to calculate the domestic peak hourly demand, using the rule of consumption of 8% of peak
daily domestic demand. To calculate the peak hourly agricultural/industrial demand, the peak daily
agricultural/industrial demand was calculated and then divided by ten, on the assumption that there are
about ten working hours in a day.

10
Design (Peak) Flows
In order to ensure that the supply system can handle the maximum demand, the pipes are
designed according to the peak hourly flows. To determine the peak hourly flows, the projected annual
water demand for each settlement in each sector was calculated (this is described in detail in the section
on water demand projection). This number is multiplied by the coefficient of the peak daily demand and
the coefficient of the peak hour demand. This results in the greatest water hourly usage that the system
should ever have to cope with.

Example Calculation of Hourly Design Flow

In Kvutsat Yavne, the projected annual domestic water consumption is 224,973 m3 and the annual
agricultural usage is 168,729 m3. The following equation was used to calculate the hourly design flow for
domestic and agricultural use:

Projected Hourly Design for Domestic Use

1.48 is the coefficient for peak daily consumption. 1/365 = 0.0027 which divides the total annual
consumption over the days of the year giving the average daily consumption. 0.08 is 8% which is
the water consumed during the peak hour and 224,973 is the projected water demand for 2045.

Projected Hourly Design for Agricultural Use

1.48 is the coefficient for peak daily consumption. 1/365 = 0.0027 which divides the total annual
consumption over the days of the year giving the average daily consumption. 1/10 = 0.1 which
divides the consumption over the constant use during work hours and 168,729 is the projected
agricultural consumption for 2045.

Water Balance and Tank Level

The water balance is a tracking method by which the amount of water in the system is
accounted for as the hours in the day pass. The system does not supply the exact amount of water
necessary at any given moment, but rather it supplies at a constant rate and not necessarily at all hours
of the day. However, the demand is not constant but is characterized by ebbs and flows. As a result,
tanks are necessary to hold the excess water so it can be supplied for any demand. Consequently, it is
crucial to determine how much water requires storing at any given moment to properly design the most
appropriate tank size. It is also important to know the water level to make sure that it never drops
below the minimum necessary to meet firefighting regulations.

Daily Demand
Projected daily demand was calculated in a similar manner to the projected peak flow. The
annual consumption is first projected to 2045. Afterwards, it is divided by 365 to receive the average
daily flow and then finally, multiplied by the peak daily consumption factor.

Example Calculation of Daily Design Demand for Water Balance

Projected Daily Design Demand for Domestic use

11
 1.48 is the coefficient for peak daily consumption. 1/365 = 0.0027 which divides the
total annual consumption over the days of the year giving the average daily consumption.
224,973 is the projected annual domestic demand for 2045.

Hourly Demand
To determine the cumulative demand, the 24 hour day was divided into hourly segments, each
corresponding to a certain percentage of water demand. In the early morning and late evenings, the
water demand is small, and therefore they represent a smaller percentage of the daily water demand,
whereas during peak hours (such as in mid-morning) the percentage is a lot larger. The total daily
demand is therefore broken up per hour by multiplying the total daily demand by its hourly percentage.

Hourly Supply
The hourly supply was calculated differently for the desalinated water supply and the well
supply. The wells are limited to a constant 200 m3/hr. per well. Depending on the total demand, the
hours of required pumping was determined and whenever possible, the pumping was set to occur
during off-peak hours. For the desalinated water, the total daily demand was divided by 24 or by 9 and
then it was determined if it was more economical to pump during off-peak hours but to pay for a larger
reservoir/tank or if it was preferable to pump 24 hours a day to reduce the reservoir/tank size.

Water Level
The water level is determined by first determining if the reservoir/tank will be emptying or filling
based on whether the demand is greater or less than the supply in any given hour. Then, a base level is
set such that there minimum water level will always be maintained. The water level is calculated by
adding the hourly supply and subtracting the hourly demand to the previous hour’s water level. The
maximum water level is used to determine the necessary reservoir/tank size from water supply
considerations. After that, it must be compared with the other regulations and the larger of the two is
the ultimate reservoir/tank size.

Example water balance chart:

Demand Demand Total Total Total

percentage Percentage Domestic Agricultural Hourly Well 2 Total Filling Emptying
Hours Domestic Agriculture/Industry Demand Demand Demand Supply Mekorot Supply Tank Tank tank level

2 1.1% 0% 6 0 6 113 0 113 107 0 961

3 1.2% 0% 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 955
4 1.4% 0% 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 948

5 1.9% 0% 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 938

6 6.3% 10% 32 41.1 73 0 0 0 0 73 866

7 6.6% 10% 33 41.1 74 0 0 0 0 74 791

12
Costs
Energy Costs
Energy costs used were an average annual cost calculated according to the energy costs that
came into effect as of April 1st, 2012 as published on the Israel Electric Company website. The rates used
are for business customers and with the VAT. The table of rates as published on their website is as
follows:

In English,
RATES

Season Hour Agurot Agurot

(after tax) (before
tax)
Summer On-peak 121.97 105.15
Mid 48.2 41.55
Off-peak 30.04 25.9
Winter On-peak 113.18 97.57

13
 Number of
Hourly
hours
Cost Average
pumping
Cost ($)
1 30.04 0.08
Mid 65.01 56.04 2 30.04 0.08
Off-peak 34.58 29.81 3 30.04 0.08
4 30.04 0.08
Fall/Spring On-peak 48.63 41.92 5 30.04 0.08
Mid 37.99 32.75 6 30.04 0.08
Off-peak 29.73 25.63 7 30.04 0.08
8 30.04 0.08
9 52.93 0.09
Business Fri. and Shabbath 10 57.70 0.09
11 68.37 0.10
Days Before and 12 68.37 0.11
Holidays Holidays 13 69.37 0.11
14 71.56 0.12
Summer Peak 10-17 - - 15 77.27 0.12
16 77.27 0.13
Mid- 7-10, 17-21 - - 17 77.27 0.13
Peak 18 77.27 0.14
Off- 21-07 all day all day 19 77.27 0.14
Peak 20 77.27 0.14
Winter Peak 16-22 - 17-19 21 87.73 0.15
22 90.35 0.15
Mid- 06-08 16-20 19-21 23 90.35 0.16
Peak 24 94.03 0.16
Off- 22-06 20-16 21-17
Peak
Spring/Fall Peak 06-20 - -
Mid- 20-22 06-20 17-21
Peak
Off- 22-06 20-06 21-17
Peak

From these rates, the average cost for pumping 24 hours a day is $0.1595 an hour. The average cost for
pumping only during off-peak hours is $0.791. Both of these rates used a conversion rate of 3.8 for ILS to
USD.
List of Possible Pipe Diameters:
Costs of Physical Items Diameter
[in] $/m
The cost of pipelines was calculated using the formula:
6 105.708
8 143.392
10 182.3
12 222.432
The cost of the pumping station was calculated using the formula:
14 263.788
16 306.368
18 350.172

The cost of water storage tanks was calculated using the formula: 20 395.2
24 488.928
30 638.7
32 691.072

The cost of earth reservoirs was calculated using the formula: 36 799.488
40 912.8
48 1154.112
54 1347.948
68 1843.072

14
Water Costs
Desalinated water used in some alternatives is purchased from the plant at a rate of $0.5/m3.
Well water is acquired only at the cost of pumping the water and delivering it to the consumer. Although
in real life, both types of water would likely require some form of treatment like disinfection, softening
chlorination or mineral addition, we will neglect these costs.

Specifics for the Project

Background

15
Yavne
The modern city of Yavne was established on December 22, 1948 by 22 immigrants from
Bulgaria. The city grew in population due to immigration from North Africa, Yemen, Iran and Europe and
in the 1990s, from Ethiopia. In the 1980’s a program was started by which a person could buy a half a
dunam of land and build a private house. This encouraged the movement of young people and career
army and police officials to the area which elevated the socio-economic level of the population and
housing prices began to rise. Between 1983 to 1995, Yavne doubled in size to its current population of
32,986 people5. Yavne is located in the southern coastal region five kilometers from the Mediterranean
Sea, encompassing 16.4 square kilometers with an average elevation of 30 meters above sea level.6

Ben Zakai
Ben Zakai is a small religious moshav located in the center of Israel in the Shfela or Judean
Foothills region. It was established in 1950 by the Poel Mizrachi organization mainly by immigrants from
Tripoli. It is located next to the city of Yavne and is under the jurisdiction of the Hevel Yavne Regional
Council. The average elevation of the moshav is about 29 meters above sea level.7

5
CBS
6
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%94
7
http://www.hevel-yavne.org.il/benzakai.asp

16
Kevutzat Yavne
Kevutzat Yevne (also known as Kibbutz Yavne) is located in the Shfela region of Israel, six
kilometers east of Ashdod. Founded in 1929 by religious German immigrants, it moved to its present
location in the winter of 1940. It is under the jurisdiction of the Hevel Yavne Regional Council. It is an
average elevation of 55 meters above sea level. It is considered one of the most financially successful
kibbutzim in Israel8.

Beit Gamliel
Beit Gamliel is a small religious moshav located in the Shfela region of Israel, between the cities
of Yavne and Rechovot. It was founded in 1949 by the Poal Mizrachi organization and included
Holocaust survivors from Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic. Several families came from North
Africa, Algeria and Tunis. It is under the jurisdiction of the Hevel Yavne Regional Council. It has an
average elevation of 28 meters above sea level9.

8
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%94
9
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%91%D7%99%D7%AA_%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%90%D7%9C

17
Population and Water Usage Predictions
Yavne
Population Prediction
The current population of Yavne is 32,986 people. According to the master plan for the next ten
years, Yavne will add 12,250 residential units.10 It is assumed that after this building boom, there will be
a lull in construction. Thus by the year 2045, 16,000 units will be probably be built in Yavne. According to
the CBS, the average number of people per household from 1995 to 2008 increased from 4.1 to 3.4.11 It
can be assumed that this number will stabilize around 3.2 people per household based on the national
average12. Thus, it can be calculated that over the next 30 years the population will grow to around
84,200 people.

Water Demand Prediction

Calculating the water demand must take into account several factors. While the system has
reported significant water losses, part of the master plan includes renovating and upgrading the system,
which should reduce water losses over time. As residential units are added and the population grows, all
accompanying sectors in Yavne (like industry, agriculture etc.) will grow as well proportionally.
Therefore, the total water purchased per capita is a fair predictor of water demand. Due to the trend of
reduced per capita usage and the prediction for reduced water losses in the distribution system, the
assumption is that the per capita usage purchase will reach 125 m3 per person per year. Therefore, in
2045 the total water demand should be 10,525,000 m3 per year. As part of the master plan, Yavne is
constructing a sewage treatment facility with the intention of selling the effluent for agricultural use and
for irrigation of public parks and gardens. This should offset some of the predicted increase giving a
predicted usage of about 10,654,404 m3 per year.

Design Flow
.

Ben Zakai
Population Growth Prediction
Ben Zakai currently has a population of about 900 people13 and contains 207 hectares of
agricultural land. The typical growth trend for moshavim in the area is around 4% every ten years14. This
would mean that by 2045 the moshav will expand to around 1,036 people. According to the mayor,
there are no plans to expand the moshav by adding household units or agricultural area so a very
modest growth is to be expected.

10
http://www.yavnecity.co.il/nextdecade.pdf
11
http://cbs.gov.il/reader//?MIval=%2Fpop_in_locs%2Fpop_in_locs_h.html&Name_h=%E9%E1%F0%E4
12
http://cbs.gov.il/reader/cw_usr_view_SHTML?ID=634
13
http://cbs.gov.il/reader//?MIval=%2Fpop_in_locs%2Fpop_in_locs_h.html&Name_h=%E1%EF+%E6%EB%E0%E9
14
Kevutzat Yavne Contact Person

18
Water Demand Prediction
According to their chief engineer, they currently use 200,000 m3 of water per year for household
and agricultural use. All of the water used is fresh water supplied to them by Mekorot. About 90,000 m3
of the water is used for agricultural purposes and the other 110,000 m3 is used in households. The
modest population growth prediction would allow us to assume that the water usage may only increase
slightly due to higher household density or a small addition of approved or unapproved structures
placed in residential or agricultural areas. However, the mayor also stated that the Moshav has plans to
start receiving treated sewage water to replace some of the fresh water usage. Because the mayor knew
no specific details regarding the timeframe or amount of water that would be supplied it seems
imprudent to include this possibility in our considerations for future water requirements.
Due to the lack of potential for serious growth and the fact that sources of water may be added
in the future, the best estimate of water needs for the given timeframe is the amount of water currently
consumed in the moshav. However, to account for possible modest growth, the system will be designed
for a usage of 228,478 m3 of water per year.

Design Flow
.

Kevutzat Yavne
Population Prediction
Kevutzat Yavne currently has a population of about 942 people15 and contains 360 hectares of
agricultural land. The typical growth trend for moshavim in the area is around 4% over ten years16. This
would mean that by 2045 the moshav will expand to around 1,060 people. In this area as well, this
seems reasonable because there are no plans to expand the kibbutz by adding household units or
agricultural area so a very modest growth is to be expected.

Water Demand Prediction

According to the Kevutzat Yavne representative, the kibbutz uses 150,000 m3 per year for
industry and livestock and 200,000 m3 per year for domestic consumption. The kibbutz also uses 3
million cubic meters of treated effluent for agricultural purposes. The modest population growth
prediction would allow us to assume that the water usage may only increase slightly due to higher
household density or a small addition of approved or unapproved structures placed in residential or
agricultural areas. The kibbutz has no plans to expand its residential or agricultural areas by adding
structures or agricultural plots.
According to the modest growth expectations of 4% for every 10 years, the 2045 water demand
for domestic, industrial and agricultural usage is 399,399 m3 per year. We talked to the kibbutz
representative and he told us that the peak hourly demand for industrial use is 100,000 m3/hour.
Therefore, will project this amount based on nominal growth of 4% for every 10 years.

15
http://www.cbs.gov.il/ishuvim/ishuv2009/bycode.xls
16
Kevutzat Yavne Contact person

19
Design Flow
.

Hourly Design Flow for Domestic Use

Hourly Design for Industrial Use

Total Hourly Design Flow

Beit Gamliel
Population Growth Prediction
Beit Gamliel currently has a population of about 900 people17 and contains 267 hectares of
agricultural land. The typical growth trends for moshavim in the area is around 4% over ten years18. This
would mean that by 2045 the moshav will expand to around 1,011 people. In this area as well, this
seems reasonable because there are no plans to expand the moshav by adding household units or
agricultural area so a very modest growth is to be expected.

Water Demand Prediction

According to the Beit Gamliel representative, the moshav uses 508,903 m3 per year for
agriculture and 100,000 m3 per year for domestic consumption. The kibbutz also uses 200,000 cubic
meters of treated effluent for agricultural purposes. The modest population growth prediction would
allow us to assume that the water usage may only increase slightly due to higher household density or a
small addition of approved or unapproved structures placed in residential or agricultural areas. The
kibbutz has no plans to expand its residential or agricultural areas by adding structures or agricultural
plots.

According to the modest growth expectations of 4% for every 10 years, the 2045 water demand for
domestic, industrial and agricultural usage is 684,934 m3 per year.

Design Flow
.

Hourly Design Flow for Domestic Use

Hourly Design for Agricultural Use

Total Hourly Design Flow

17
http://www.cbs.gov.il/ishuvim/ishuv2009/bycode.xls
18
Kevutzat Yavne Contact person

20
Summary of Settlement Information
Demographic and Topographical Information
Name Average Elevation Current Projected Demographic
[m] Population (2012) Population (2045) Trend
Yavne 30 32,986 84,200 Significant growth
Ben Zakai 30 900 1,036 Modest to no
growth
Kevutzat Yavne 60 942 1,060 Modest to no
growth
Beit Gamliel 30 899 1,011 Modest to no
growth

Annual Water Demand in m3/year

Settlement Current (2012) Water Demand Projected (2045) Water Demand
Domestic Agricultural/Industrial Total Domestic Agricultural/Industrial Total
Yavne 3,917,087 206,162 4,123,250 9,975,000 525,000 10,654,404
Ben Zakai 110,000 90,000 200,000 123,735 101,238 228,478
Kevutzat 200,000 150,000 350,000 224,973 168,730 399,399
Yavne
Beit 100,000 508,903 608,903 112,486 562,432 684,934
Gamliel
Total 5,282,153 11,967,215

Peak Daily Demand Projection for 2045 (for water balance) in m3/day
Settlement Domestic Agricultural/Industrial Total
Yavne 40,466 2,129 42,575
Ben Zakai 502 411 913
Kevutzat 912 684 1,596
Yavne
Beit Gamliel 456 2,281 2,737
Total 44,445 3,376 47,821

Peak Hourly Demand Projection for 2045 (for design) in m3/hour

Settlement Domestic Agricultural/Industrial Total
Yavne 3,189 168 3,357
Ben Zakai 40 40 80
Kevutzat 72 112 184
Yavne
Beit Gamliel 36 225 261

Design Alternatives
In order to compare alternatives a base alternative was created and then certain aspects were
changed to allow for easy comparison between the alternatives. This way, it was easy to see which
aspects of each alternative are the most cost effective, thus allowing for the building of the most
efficient design.

21
 Every city only required one pressure zone. For the smaller settlements this was obvious,
however, for Yavne, which is much larger, due to its relatively flat topography, only one pressure zone
was necessary.

22
Alternative 1—Base Alternative
In the first alternative, all of the water is supplied by the (planned) Ashdod desalination plant. This is the
“simplest” alternative in that there is only one water source connected to the most straightforward
network of pipes. The water from the desalination plant exits to a large reservoir. A large pump pumps
the water through a large-diameter pipeline until a juncture. This design ensures that at this juncture
there is enough head for the water to arrive at Kibbutz Yavne, which is at a higher elevation than the
other settlements, thus there is no need for another pump at the junction. There, the pipe splits into
two pipes. The smaller, southern pipeline is dedicated to supply of water to Kibbutz Yavne. The northern
pipeline supplies water to Ben Zakai, continues to Yavne and then ends in Beit Gamliel. At the end of
each branch there is a tank (in Kibbutz Yavne and Beit Gamliel). In order to provide constant head of 30
m to the consumers there are small pumps at each tank. All pumps operate 24 hours a day because the
cost of having a smaller tank outweighed the increase of the cost of energy of pumping during peak
hours.

Pipe Length [Km] Starting End Elevation Structure Number Volume [m3]
Elevation [m] [m]
Reservoir 1 15781
1 5.8 0 30
Tank 1 9390
2 5.1 30 60
3a 2.0 30 36 Tank 2 495
3b 2.7 36 30
3c 2.0 30 30

23
 Yavne
Demand: 3,357
m3/hr
+30m

Ben Zakai
Demand: 80
m3/hr
+36m

Pipe 3b
Flow: 3618
m3/hr
Pipe 3c Beit Gamliel
Ashdod Flow: 261 Demand: 261
Desalination m3/hr m3/hr
Plant +30m
+0m Pipe 3a
Flow: 3698
m3/hr

Pipe 1 Tank 1
Reservoir 1 Flow: 3882 +30m
+0m m3/hr

Pipe 2
Flow: 184
m3/hr

Kibbutz Yavne
Demand: 184
m3/hr
+55m

Tank 2
+60m

24
Alternative 2
In this alternative as well, all of the water is supplied by the (planned) Ashdod desalination plant.
However, in this alternative, the pipe splits into three pipelines at the major juncture (a more complex
system). One pipe goes north straight to the west end of Yavne. The pipe that goes south supplies water
to the north end of Kibbutz Yavne. The central line supplies water to Ben Zakai, the east end of Yavne
and then ends in Beit Gamliel. The pumping scheme and tank configuration is same as in the base
alternative, with the addition of one tank and pump at the western side of Yavne.

Structure Number Volume [m3]

Pipe Length [Km] Starting End Elevation Reservoir 1 15781
Elevation [m] [m] Tank 1 4208
1 5.8 0 30 Tank 2 527
2 5.1 30 60 Tank 3 8229
3a 2.0 30 36
3b 2.7 36 30
3c 2.0 30 30
4 4.2 30 48

25
 Yavne Yavne
Demand: 1,679 Demand: 1,678
m3/hr m3/hr
+30m +30m

Tank 1
Pipe 4 +30m
Flow: 1,679
m3/hr Pipe 3b
Flow: 1939
m3/hr
Pipe 3c
Flow: 261
Ashdod m3/hr Beit Gamliel
Desalination Ben Zakai Demand: 261
Plant Demand: 80 m3/hr
+0m m3/hr +30m
+36m

Tank 3
Pipe 3a +30 m
Flow: 2019 +30m
Pipe 1 m3/hr
Flow: 3882
Reservoir 1
m3/hr
+0m

Pipe 2
Flow: 184
m3/hr Kibbutz Yavne
Demand: 184
m3/hr
+55m

Tank 2
+60m

26
Alternative 3
This alternative deviates from the base alternative in that the all four settlements receive their water
from wells, as opposed to the desalination plant. Yavne requires nine wells while the other settlements
only need one. Each well supplies up to 200 m3/hour and there is a tank in each settlement to enable
water balance. At each settlement, a pump is necessary to provide the minimum head to the
consumers, 24 hours a day.

Structure Number Volume [m3]

Reservoir 1 15781
Reservoir 2 14050
Tank 1 1560
Tank 2 961
Tank 3 2496

27
 Yavne
Demand: 3,357
m3/hr
+30m

Reservoir 1
+45m Well 4-12
Flow: 200
m3/hr
+30m

Beit Gamliel
Demand: 261
m3/hr
+30m

Ben Zakai
Demand: 80
m3/hr
Ashdod +36m
Desalination
Plant Tank 3
+0m Well 3 +30m
Flow: 200
m3/hr
+30m
Kibbutz Yavne
Well 2 Demand: 184
Flow: 200 m3/hr
m3/hr Tank 2
+30m +55m
+36m

Well 1 Tank 1
Flow: 200 +60m
28 m3/hr
+60m
Alternative 4
In this alternative, all of the water is supplied by the (planned) Ashdod desalination plant. The water is
pumped to a large reservoir built in Kibbutz Yavne, the highest location among the settlements in this
supply network. From there, the water will be supplied by gravity to the other settlements. The pipe
design ensured that there would be less than 5 m of head loss throughout the pipe system from Kibbutz
Yavne to the other settlements, therefore guaranteeing the necessary minimum head. The supply
pipeline will go first to Ben Zakai, then to Yavne and finally to Beit Gamliel.

Pipe Length [Km] Starting End Elevation

Elevation [m] [m]
Structure Number Volume [m3]
1 10.3 0 60
Reservoir 1 15781
2a 7.1 60 36
Reservoir 2 15781
2b 2.7 36 30
2c 2.0 30 30

29
 Yavne
Demand: 3,357
m3/hr
+30m

Ben Zakai
Demand: 80 Pipe 2b
m3/hr Flow: 3618
+36m m3/hr

Pipe 2c
Flow: 261
m3/hr Beit Gamliel
Demand: 261
m3/hr
+30m

Ashdod Reservoir 1 Pipe 2a

Desalination +0m Flow: 3698
Plant m3/hr
+0m
Pipe 1
Flow: 3882
m3/hr

Reservoir 2 Kibbutz Yavne

+60m Demand: 184
30 m3/hr
+55m
 Comparison of Alternatives
In order to perform a comparison of alternatives, the pipe system was optimized in Excel® using
a linear programming method. The cost of energy used to overcome head losses was balanced with the
cost of larger diameter pipes to create the optimal system with the lowest annual cost. The operation
and maintenance costs were also taken into account. Afterwards, the annual cost of operating all of the
pumps in the system was determined based on the flow, dynamic head requirements and average
energy cost based on number of daily pumping hours. The cost of constructing pumping stations,
reservoirs and water tanks was also included based on the equations described in the “methodology”
section above. All costs were converted to equivalent annual costs for the sake of comparison.

Comparison Results
The results of the comparison were as follows:
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Item $/yr Item $/yr
Desalinated $ 5,896,797.00 Desalinated $ 5,896,797.00
water water
Pipes $ 2,333,520.61 Pipes $ 2,274,929.71
Reservoir $ 10,589.46 Reservoir $ 10,589.46
Pump 1 $ 19,364.06 Pump 1 $ 19,285.40
Pump 2 $ 161,768.81 Pump 2 $ 88,659.99
Pump 4 $ 27,292.31 Pump 4 $ 78,620.89
Tank 1 $ 64,236.38 pump 5 $ 9,222.55
Tank 2 $ 7,448.83 Tank 1 $ 58,321.94
Total $ 8,521,017.46 Tank 2 $ 35,693.33
Tank 3 $ 7,797.51
Total $8,479,917.77
Alternative 3
Item $/yr
Desalinated Alternative 4
water $ - Item $/yr
Pipes $ - Desalinated
water $ 5,896,797.00
Reservoir $ 9,373.51
Pipes $ 2,405,832.39
Pump 1 $ 258,685.83
Reservoir 1 $ 10,589.46
Pump 2 $ 18,138.25
Reservoir 2 $ 14,119.45
Pump 3 $ 43,797.52
Pump 1 $ 20,340.72
Pump 4 $ 27,292.31
Pump 2 $ 17,558.77
Tank 1 $ 16,445.27
Total $ 8,365,237.78
Tank 2 $ 11,173.32
Tank 3 $ 23,634.85
Pumps 4-12 $ 1,058,323.86
Well cost $1,764,914.85
Total $ 3,231,779.56
31
 Alternative Costs [1000$]

Alternative 4

Alternative 3

Alternative 2

Alternative 1

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000

32
Comparison Analysis
Alternative 1,2 and 4 are quite similar in their annual costs. The cost to buy the pipe networks
and pump the water is within $200,000 for each alternative even though the pipe routes are different
and the pumping scheme is varied. Adding an extra pipe line as was done in alternative 2 adds costs in
the form of extra pipe but this is compensated by savings in the form of smaller diameter pipes across
the system. Therefore, regardless of route, the cost to build the system remains roughly comparable. It
was concluded that the cost of building a water supply network is fixed within a certain range regardless
of optimization. However, the main expense for those alternatives is the cost of the desalinated water
purchased in large amounts every year. This cost alone added about five million dollars to each
alternative. Alternative 3 avoids that cost by supplying water from the coastal aquifer. This is to be
expected because desalinated water isn’t the most economical method of supplying water but it offers
many other benefits especially in an arid environment with overdrawn natural freshwater resources.
Wells also have a hidden costs and inherent unreliability in the form of possible contamination,
excessive salinity, and government regulation and pumping restrictions. All alternatives contain storage
tanks that meet water supply and firefighting regulations.

Summary of Analysis:
 Regardless of the route, the cost of the pipe system remained almost the same
 Purchase of desalinated water is the most significant cost
 Energy costs for wells are the most significant cost
 A robust should not rely only on one water source, especially wells

 Therefore the Recommended Alternative should:

 Draw mainly from well water, avoiding the cost of desalinated water
 The wells should only operate during off-peak hours, where possible
 The possibility of accessing desalinated water should exist

The Recommended Alternative

In light of the realizations mentioned above, it was decided that the best alternative was
actually a combination of alternative 1 and alternative 3. Alternative 1 is the most basic and reliable pipe
distribution network that can provide desalinated water if demand exceeds well supply for any reason
whether it is well contamination, well pump failure or government mandated pumping restrictions.
Barring these circumstances, the wells can provide the settlements with high quality water at a much
lower cost than desalinated water. This alternative will provide economical water supply combined with
redundancy and robustness. It isn’t ideal to have a pipe system with no water in it so a small flow and
minimum head should be provided at all times. It was decided not to include these costs in the total
system costs because relative to the other costs involved it is assumed to be negligible. The following
diagram shows the progression from the base alternative to the recommended alternative.

33
 Alternative 2

Alternative 3
Base Recommended
Alternative Alternative
Alternative 4

Route

Pipe Length [Km] Starting End Elevation Structure Number Volume [m3]
Elevation [m] [m] Reservoir 1 15781
1 5.8 0 30 Reservoir 2 14050
2 5.1 30 60 Tank 1 1560
3a 2.0 30 36 Tank 2 961
3b 2.7 36 30 Tank 3 2496
3c 2.0 30 30

34
 Yavne
Demand: 3,357
m3/hr
+30m

Block Diagram
Well 4-12
Flow: 200
m3/hr
Ben Zakai +30m
Reservoir 2
Demand: 80
+45m
m3/hr
+36m

Pipe 3b

Well 2 Tank 2 Pipe 3c

Flow: 200 +30m Beit Gamliel
m3/hr Demand: 261
+30m m3/hr
+30m

Ashdod
Desalination Pipe 3a
Plant
+0m

Tank 3 Well 3
+30m Flow: 200
m3/hr
Reservoir 1 Pipe 1 +36m
+0m

Pipe 2

Kibbutz Yavne
Demand: 184
m3/hr
+55m

Well 1
Flow: 200
m3/hr
+60m
35 Tank 1
+60m
Pipe Diameters
After solving the linear programming model using Excel, the optimal pipe diameters for the
system (when running at full capacity of desalinated water) is as follows:

Pipe Name Diameter Length [km]

Pipe 1 40“ 5.8
Pipe 2 24“ 5.1
Pipe 3a 40” 2.0
Pipe 3b 32” 0.6
36” 2.1
Pipe 3c 68” 2.0

Pipe Thickness
The minimum pipe thickness was checked according to the formulas mentioned above. Pressure
thickness was checked according to the maximum pressure in the system (7.5 bar) although most of the
system is subjected to pressures far below that. The handling thickness was greater than the pressure
thickness for every pipe in the system so that will be the determining requirement.

Diameter Thickness Requirements

Diameter Diameter Handling Handling Pressure Pressure
[in] [mm] [in] [mm] [in] [mm]
24 609.6 0.1 2.54 0.05 1.25
32 812.8 0.13 3.39 0.07 1.67
36 914.4 0.15 3.81 0.07 1.88
40 1016 0.17 4.23 0.08 2.08
48 1219.2 0.2 5.08 0.10 2.50

Design Stages
As mentioned earlier, most of our settlements have little projected growth over the next three
decades. Therefore, the most cost effective and practical way of building the system is to only have one
initial design stage. The project is designed to be operational in 2015 and be effective until 2045. This
coincides with the lifespan of most of the components of the system meaning that there should be no
reason for large-scale overhaul and replacement of any of the components beyond reasonable wear and
tear and statistically expected failure. The lifespan of the various components are as follows:

Component Lifespan (years)

Pipelines and water
40
tanks
Reservoirs 25

36
 Pump Stations and
Pumping Wells 15
Civil Engineering Works 50
Costs
This alternative contains just the pipe purchase and O&M costs from alternative 1 along with all of the
costs from alternative 3. The cost of purchasing desalinated water should be zero in the ideal scenario
where all water is supplied by wells from the coastal aquifer. The well purchase cost and the energy cost
are the most significant because the wells require pumping to a tank or reservoir and then another
pump must supply minimum supply head 24 hours a day. All costs listed below are in US dollars per
annum.

37
 Tanks Pipes
Tank 1 $ 17,262.55 Name Purchase O&M Total
Tank 2 $ 12,109.21 1 $ 323,328.28 $ 1,134.48 $ 324,462.76
Tank 3 $ 24,352.98 2 $ 152,284.31 $ 534.33 $ 152,818.63
Total $ 53,724.74 3a $ 111,492.51 $ 391.20 $ 111,883.71
3b $ 127,847.09 $ 448.58 $ 128,295.67
3c $ 225,119.11 $ 789.89 $ 225,909.00
Total $ 943,369.77
Pumping Stations
Reservoir 1 $ 19,364.06
Energy Costs
Reservoir 2 $ 10,959.65
Reservoir 1 $ -
Tank 1 $ 4,954.18
Reservoir 2 $ 247,726.17
Tank 2 $ 4,236.43 Pump 1 $ 22,338.13
Tank 3 $ 5,898.39 Pump 2 $ 13,901.82
Total $ 45,412.71 Pump 3 $ 37,899.13
Well 1 $ 9,631.24
Well 2 $ 3,631.61
Reservoirs
Well 3 $ 12,745.48
Reservoir 1 $ 14,119.45
Well 4 $ 262,192.64
Reservoir 2 $ 13,168.59
Well 5 $ 262,192.64
Total $ 27,288.04 Well 6 $ 262,192.64
Well 7 $ 262,192.64
Well 8 $ 262,192.64
Wells
Well 9 $ 262,192.64
Name Purchase O&M Total
Well 10 $ 262,192.64
Well 1 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 11 $ 262,192.64
Well 2 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 12 $ 262,192.64
Well 3 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 4 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59 Total $ 2,707,607.35
Well 5 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 6 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 7 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 8 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 9 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 10 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 11 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Well 12 $ 122,143.41 $ 26.17 $ 122,169.59
Total $ 1,466,035.06

Grand Total $ 5,243,437.66

38
 Alternative Costs [1000$]

Recommended Alternative

Alternative 4

Alternative 3

Alternative 2

Alternative 1

$0 $1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000

39
Longitudinal Cross Section and Piezometric Head Analysis
Note that the piezometric head analysis is relevant only for when the pipes are flowing at full
capacity. Ideally, this should never occur but a full analysis must be performed in case the pipes do need
to be put into service. If the pressure head is checked along the elevation profiles below, it can be seen
that the pressure head is always higher than the elevation head at every point along the pipe so flow will
always continue in the desired direction.

Pipe 1

80
70
Pipe 1
60
50
Head (m)

40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Length (Km)

40
Pipe 2

80
70
Pipe 2
60
50
Head (m)

40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Length (Km)

Pipe 3a

41
 80
70
Pipe 3a
60
50
Head (m)

40
30
20
10
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Length (Km)

Pipe 3b

67
66
Pipe 3b
65
64
Head (m)

63
62
61
60
59
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Length (Km)

42
Pipe 3c

70
Pipe 3c
60

50
Head (m)

40

30

20

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Length (Km)

Water Balance and Reservoir/Tank Level Graphs

There are two graphs for each reservoir/tank; the first depicts the cumulative supply and
demand as a function of time. The second graph shows the water level in each tank as a function of
time.

43
Reservoir 1
60000
Reservoir 1 Supply and Demand
50000

40000
Water [m3]

30000
Cumulative Demand
Cumulative Supply
20000

10000

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

Reservoir 1 Water Level

12000

10000
Water Level [m3]

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

44
Reservoir 2
45000
Reservoir 2 Supply and Demand
40000

35000

30000
Water [m3]

25000

20000 Cumulative Demand

Cumulative Supply
15000

10000

5000

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day
T

Reservoir 2 Water Level

9000
8000
7000
Water Level [m3]

6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
-1000 0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

45
Tank 1
1800
Tank 1 Supply and Demand
1600

1400

1200
Water [m3]

1000

800 Cumulative Demand

600 Cumulative Supply

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

Tank 1 Water Level

1800
1600
1400
Water Level [m3]

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

46
Tank 2
1000
900 Tank 2 Supply and Demand
800
700
Water [m3]

600
500
Cumulative Demand
400
300 Cumulative Supply
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

Tank 2 Water Level

1200

1000
Water Level [m3]

800

600

400

200

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

47
Tank 3
3000
Tank 3 Supply and Demand
2500

2000
Water [m3]

1500
Cumulative Demand
1000 Cumulative Supply

500

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

Tank 3 Water Level

3000

2500
Water Level [m3]

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 5 10 15 20
Time of Day

Resistance Curves
In order to purchase pumps for the system, it is necessary to find pumps that will work optimally
at the predicted flows. This is accomplished by plotting the resistance (unit length head losses) as a
function of flow for a specific pipe diameter and Hazen-Williams coefficient. Afterwards, it is assumed
that a pump exists that will work optimally at the predicted maximum flow and the curve for that pump
is plotted over the resistance curve. It is sometimes preferable to use multiple pumps installed in
parallel to save money when the demand is low and to add redundancy to the system. It was decided
not to design the system in this manner because for the majority of our settlements, even the peak flow
is quite small. Furthermore, it was decided not to take these costs into account when designing the
system because it is assumed that there are pumps within the settlements that can provide this
redundancy. The following are a few examples of resistance curves for select pipes in the desalinated

48
water supply system. The resistance curves are different because each pipe has a different diameter but
the pump curve is the same for all of them because they are all attached to the same pump at the
system origin.

5
4
Resistance Curve-Pipe 1
Head [m]

3
2 Resistance Curve
1 Pump Curve
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Flow [m3/hr]

5
4
Resistance Curve-Pipe 3a
Head [m]

3
2 Resistance Curve
1 Pump Curve
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Flow [m3/hr]

10
8
Resistance Curve-Pipe 3b
Head [m]

6
4 Resistance Curve
2 Pump Curve
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000
Flow [m3/hr]

49
Bill of Quantities
Code Description Unit Price Unit O&M Factor Quantity Unit Price
Pr Project 1 - - - - - $ 41,758,648.04
Pi Pipes - $/m 1.0075 - - $ 15,508,532.94
Pi.24 24" diameter pipe 488.93 $/m 1.0075 5,100 m $ 2,512,234.30
Pi.32 32" diameter pipe 691.07 $/m 1.0075 600 m $ 417,753.02
Pi.36 36" diameter pipe 799.49 $/m 1.0075 2,100 m $ 1,691,516.74
Pi.40 40" diameter pipe 912.8 $/m 1.0075 7,800 m $ 7,173,238.80
Pi.68 68" diameter pipe 1843.07 $/m 1.0075 2,000 m $ 3,713,790.08

Pu Pumping Stations - $ - - $ 743,596.55

Pu.r1 Pumping Station-Adjacent to Reservoir 1 317070.9 $ - 1 - $ 317,070.92
Pu.r2 Pumping Station-Adjacent to Reservoir 2 179455.5 $ - 1 - $ 179,455.47
Pu.t1 Pumping Station-Adjacent to Tank 1 81120.65 $ - 1 - $ 81,120.65
Pu.t2 Pumping Station-Adjacent to Tank 2 69368.08 $ - 1 - $ 69,368.08
Pu.t3 Pumping Station-Adjacent to Tank 3 96581.43 $ - 1 - $ 96,581.43

3 3
Re Reservoirs - $/m - - m $ 446,819.55
3 3 3
Re.01 Reservoir 1 - 15,781 m 14.65 $/m - 15,781 m $ 231,194.55
3 3 3
Re.02 Reservoir 2 - 15,781 m 15.35 $/m - 14,050 m $ 215,625.00

3 3
Ta Water Tanks - $/m - - m $ 879,699.00
3 3 3
Ta.01 Water Tank 1 - 1,560 m 181.19 $/m - 1,560 m $ 282,660.00
3 3 3
Ta.02 Water Tank 2 - 961 m 206.33 $/m - 961 m $ 198,279.00
3 3 3
Ta.03 Water Tank 3 - 2,496 m 159.76 $/m - 2,496 m $ 398,760.00

We Wells -Purchase & Installation - $/well 1.0075 - wells $ 24,180,000.00

3
We.01 Wells of 200 m /hr supply 2000000 $/well 1.0075 12 wells $ 24,180,000.00

50
Annual Cost Breakdown
The largest annual costs for this supply system when the water is supplied by wells are the
energy costs. The water is essentially supplied by electricity in the form of dynamic head used to lift the
water from the aquifer. If the water was supplied from the desalination plant, the purchase of the water
would be the dominant cost. All of the other costs are for items purchased at the outset and then paid
for over the lifespan of the system (35 years). Even combined, the purchase costs are slightly less than
the recurring annual energy costs. Because the system contains only one design stage, the payments are
constant throughout the whole lifetime of the system.

Cost Breakdown-Percentage
0.52%
0.87%
17.99% Pipes
27.96% 1.02%
Reservoirs
Pumping Stations
Tanks
Energy Costs
51.64%
Wells

Cost Breakdown - Values

$943,369.77 $53,724.74 Pipes

$1,466,035.06 $45,412.71 Reservoirs
$27,288.04
Pumping Stations
Tanks
Energy Costs
Wells
$2,707,607.35

51
Appendix

Linear Programming System Solution

Pipe 1

Flow 3882 m3/hr

Fixed
Total Length 5.8 km

Dynamic Head
D D HWC v loss Length Head Loss Investment Cost PMT Cost
[inch] [mm] [m/sec] [m/km] [km] [m] [$] [$/yr]
2 50.8 105 532.03 4462668.093 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
3 76.2 110 236.46 568346.886 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
4 101.6 115 133.01 128946.242 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
6 152.4 120 59.11 16542.951 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
8 203.2 120 33.25 4075.317 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
10 254 125 21.28 1274.606 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
12 304.8 125 14.78 524.521 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
14 355.6 125 10.86 247.590 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
16 406.4 125 8.31 129.215 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Alternatives
18 457.2 125 6.57 72.811 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
20 508 130 5.32 40.533 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
24 609.6 135 3.69 15.554 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
30 762 135 2.36 5.247 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
32 812.8 135 2.08 3.832 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
36 914.4 135 1.64 2.159 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
40 1016 140 1.33 1.208 5.80 7.01 5294240 $323,328.28
48 1219.2 140 0.92 0.497 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
54 1371.6 140 0.73 0.280 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
68 1727.2 140 0.46 0.091 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
80 2032 150 0.33 0.036 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
100 2540 155 0.21 0.012 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Totals 5.80 7.01 5294240 $323,328.28

Pipe 2
3
Fixed Flow 184 m /hr
Total Length 5.1 km

Dynamic Head
D D HWC v loss Length Head Loss Investment Cost PMT Cost
Alternatives [inch] [mm] [m/sec] [m/km] [km] [m] [$] [$/yr]
2 50.8 105 532.03 15743.684 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
3 76.2 110 236.46 2005.050 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00

52
 4 101.6 115 133.01 454.905 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
6 152.4 120 59.11 58.361 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
8 203.2 120 33.25 14.377 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
10 254 125 21.28 4.497 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
12 304.8 125 14.78 1.850 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
14 355.6 125 10.86 0.873 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
16 406.4 125 8.31 0.456 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
18 457.2 125 6.57 0.257 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
20 508 130 5.32 0.143 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
24 609.6 135 3.69 0.055 5.10 0.28 2493532.8 $152,284.31
30 762 135 2.36 0.019 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
32 812.8 135 2.08 0.014 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
36 914.4 135 1.64 0.008 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
40 1016 140 1.33 0.004 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
48 1219.2 140 0.92 0.002 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
54 1371.6 140 0.73 0.001 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
68 1727.2 140 0.46 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
80 2032 150 0.33 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
100 2540 155 0.21 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Totals 5.10 0.28 2493532.8 $152,284.31

Pipe 3a
3
Fixed Flow 3698 m /hr
Total Length 2 km

Dynamic Head
D D HWC v loss Length Head Loss Investment Cost PMT Cost
[inch] [mm] [m/sec] [m/km] [km] [m] [$] [$/yr]
2 50.8 105 532.03 4078856.774 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
3 76.2 110 236.46 519466.270 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
4 101.6 115 133.01 117856.234 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
6 152.4 120 59.11 15120.176 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
8 203.2 120 33.25 3724.819 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Alternatives 10 254 125 21.28 1164.983 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
12 304.8 125 14.78 479.410 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
14 355.6 125 10.86 226.296 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
16 406.4 125 8.31 118.102 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
18 457.2 125 6.57 66.549 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
20 508 130 5.32 37.047 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
24 609.6 135 3.69 14.216 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
30 762 135 2.36 4.796 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
32 812.8 135 2.08 3.502 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00

53
 36 914.4 135 1.64 1.973 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
40 1016 140 1.33 1.104 2.00 2.21 1825600 $111,492.51
48 1219.2 140 0.92 0.454 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
54 1371.6 140 0.73 0.256 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
68 1727.2 140 0.46 0.083 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
80 2032 150 0.33 0.033 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
100 2540 155 0.21 0.011 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Totals 2.00 2.21 1825600 $111,492.51

Pipe 3b

Flow 3618 m3/hr

Fixed
Total Length 2.7 km

Dynamic Head
D D HWC v loss Length Head Loss Investment Cost PMT Cost
[inch] [mm] [m/sec] [m/km] [km] [m] [$] [$/yr]
2 50.8 105 532.03 3916945.438 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
3 76.2 110 236.46 498845.914 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
4 101.6 115 133.01 113177.898 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
6 152.4 120 59.11 14519.977 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
8 203.2 120 33.25 3576.962 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
10 254 125 21.28 1118.739 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
12 304.8 125 14.78 460.380 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
14 355.6 125 10.86 217.313 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
16 406.4 125 8.31 113.413 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Alternatives
18 457.2 125 6.57 63.907 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
20 508 130 5.32 35.577 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
24 609.6 135 3.69 13.652 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
30 762 135 2.36 4.605 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
32 812.8 135 2.08 3.363 0.60 2.02 415758.1031 $25,391.06
36 914.4 135 1.64 1.895 2.10 3.98 1677634.99 $102,456.03
40 1016 140 1.33 1.061 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
48 1219.2 140 0.92 0.436 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
54 1371.6 140 0.73 0.246 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
68 1727.2 140 0.46 0.080 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
80 2032 150 0.33 0.032 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
100 2540 155 0.21 0.010 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Totals 2.70 6.00 2093393.093 $127,847.09

Pipe 3c
Fixed Flow 261 m3/hr

54
 Total Length 2 km

Dynamic Head
D D HWC v loss Length Head Loss Investment Cost PMT Cost
[inch] [mm] [m/sec] [m/km] [km] [m] [$] [$/yr]
2 50.8 105 532.03 30080.286 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
3 76.2 110 236.46 3830.900 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
4 101.6 115 133.01 869.153 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
6 152.4 120 59.11 111.507 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
8 203.2 120 33.25 27.469 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
10 254 125 21.28 8.591 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
12 304.8 125 14.78 3.535 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
14 355.6 125 10.86 1.669 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
16 406.4 125 8.31 0.871 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Alternatives
18 457.2 125 6.57 0.491 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
20 508 126 5.32 0.289 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
24 609.6 127 3.69 0.117 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
30 762 135 2.36 0.035 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
32 812.8 135 2.08 0.026 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
36 914.4 135 1.64 0.015 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
40 1016 140 1.33 0.008 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
48 1219.2 140 0.92 0.003 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
54 1371.6 140 0.73 0.002 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
68 1727.2 140 0.46 0.001 2.00 0.00 3686144 $225,119.11
80 2032 150 0.33 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
100 2540 155 0.21 0.000 0.00 0.00 0 $0.00
Totals 2.00 0.00 3686144 $225,119.11

Junction J-1 Junction J-2

Fixed Demand 0 3
m /hr Fixed Demand 184 m3/hr
Elevation 30 m Elevation 60 m
Min Head 32 m Min Head 62 m
Calculated Head 68.21 m Calculated Head 67.93 m

Junction J-3 Junction J-4

Fixed Demand 80 m3/hr Fixed Demand 3357 m3/hr
Elevation 36 m Elevation 30 m

Min Head 66 m Min Head 60 m

Calculated Head 66.00 m Calculated Head 60.00 m

55
 Junction J-5

Fixed Demand 261 m3/hr

Elevation 30 m
Min Head 32 m
Calculated Head 60.00 m

Full Water Balance for Recommended Alternative

Reservoir 1
Pump 24 hr

Demand Total
Demand Percentage Total Agricultur Total Well Total Empt
percentage Agricultrue/In Domestic al Hourly Suppl Meko Suppl Filling ying tank
Hours Domestic dustry Demand Demand Demand y rot y Tank Tank level
24 451
0 1.1% 0% 468 0 468 1800 0 1800 1332 0 1783
1 1.0% 0% 426 0 426 1800 0 1800 1374 0 3157
2 1.1% 0% 468 0 468 1800 0 1800 1332 0 4489
3 1.2% 0% 511 0 511 1800 0 1800 1289 0 5778
4 1.4% 0% 596 0 596 1800 0 1800 1204 0 6982
5 1.9% 0% 809 0 809 1800 0 1800 991 0 7973
6 6.3% 10% 2682 0 2682 1800 0 1800 0 882 7091
7 6.6% 10% 2810 0 2810 1800 0 1800 0 1010 6081
8 7.6% 10% 3236 0 3236 1800 0 1800 0 1436 4645
9 8.0% 10% 3406 0 3406 1800 0 1800 0 1606 3039
10 7.0% 10% 2980 0 2980 1800 0 1800 0 1180 1859
11 5.5% 10% 2342 0 2342 1800 0 1800 0 542 1317
12 5.4% 10% 2299 0 2299 1800 0 1800 0 499 818
13 2.0% 10% 852 0 852 1800 0 1800 949 0 1766
14 1.9% 10% 809 0 809 1800 0 1800 991 0 2758
15 1.9% 10% 809 0 809 1800 0 1800 991 0 3749
16 3.0% 0% 1277 0 1277 1800 0 1800 523 0 4271
17 4.1% 0% 1746 0 1746 1800 0 1800 54 0 4326
18 6.1% 0% 2597 0 2597 1800 0 1800 0 797 3529
19 6.6% 0% 2810 0 2810 1800 0 1800 0 1010 2519
20 6.8% 0% 2895 0 2895 1800 0 1800 0 1095 1424
21 6.3% 0% 2682 0 2682 1800 0 1800 0 882 541
22 5.5% 0% 2342 0 2342 1800 0 1800 0 542 0
23 1.7% 0% 724 0 724 1175 0 1175 451 0 451
4257 4257 4257 8515 1277
Total 100% 100% 42575 0 42575 5 0 5 5 0 25
Regulatio 1404 1405
ns 9.75 Max 0

56
 Tank 1

Pump Only in off Peak

Demand Total Total Total

percentage Demand Percentage Domestic Agricultural Hourly Well Total Filling Emptying tank
Hours Domestic Agricultrue/Industry Demand Demand Demand Supply Mekorot Supply Tank Tank level

24 434

0 1.1% 0% 10 0 10 200 0 200 190 0 624

1 1.0% 0% 9 0 9 200 0 200 191 0 815

2 1.1% 0% 10 0 10 200 0 200 190 0 1005

3 1.2% 0% 11 0 11 200 0 200 189 0 1194

4 1.4% 0% 13 0 13 200 0 200 187 0 1381

5 1.9% 0% 17 0 17 196 0 196 179 0 1560

6 6.3% 10% 57 68.4 126 0 0 0 0 126 1434

7 6.6% 10% 60 68.4 129 0 0 0 0 129 1305

8 7.6% 10% 69 68.4 138 0 0 0 0 138 1168

9 8.0% 10% 73 68.4 141 0 0 0 0 141 1026

10 7.0% 10% 64 68.4 132 0 0 0 0 132 894
11 5.5% 10% 50 68.4 119 0 0 0 0 119 775
12 5.4% 10% 49 68.4 118 0 0 0 0 118 658
13 2.0% 10% 18 68.4 87 0 0 0 0 87 571

14 1.9% 10% 17 68.4 86 0 0 0 0 86 485

15 1.9% 10% 17 68.4 86 0 0 0 0 86 400
16 3.0% 0% 27 0 27 0 0 0 0 27 372
17 4.1% 0% 37 0 37 0 0 0 0 37 335
18 6.1% 0% 56 0 56 0 0 0 0 56 279
19 6.6% 0% 60 0 60 0 0 0 0 60 219
20 6.8% 0% 62 0 62 0 0 0 0 62 157
21 6.3% 0% 57 0 57 0 0 0 0 57 100
22 5.5% 0% 50 0 50 200 0 200 150 0 250
23 1.7% 0% 16 0 16 200 0 200 184 0 434
Total 100% 100% 912 684 1596 1596 0 1596 1596 3192 4788
Regulations 526.68 Max 1560

57
Tank 2
Pump Only in off Peak

Demand Demand Total

percentag Percentage Total Total Hourly Well 2 Total Fillin
Hour e Agricultrue/Industr Domestic Agricultura Deman Suppl Mekoro Suppl g Emptyin tank
s Domestic y Demand l Demand d y t y Tank g Tank level

24 464

0 1.1% 0% 6 0 6 200 0 200 194 0 658

1 1.0% 0% 5 0 5 200 0 200 195 0 853

2 1.1% 0% 6 0 6 113 0 113 107 0 961

3 1.2% 0% 6 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 955
4 1.4% 0% 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 948

5 1.9% 0% 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 10 938

6 6.3% 10% 32 41.1 73 0 0 0 0 73 866

7 6.6% 10% 33 41.1 74 0 0 0 0 74 791

8 7.6% 10% 38 41.1 79 0 0 0 0 79 712

9 8.0% 10% 40 41.1 81 0 0 0 0 81 631
10 7.0% 10% 35 41.1 76 0 0 0 0 76 555

11 5.5% 10% 28 41.1 69 0 0 0 0 69 486

12 5.4% 10% 27 41.1 68 0 0 0 0 68 418
13 2.0% 10% 10 41.1 51 0 0 0 0 51 367
14 1.9% 10% 10 41.1 51 0 0 0 0 51 316
15 1.9% 10% 10 41.1 51 0 0 0 0 51 265

16 3.0% 0% 15 0 15 0 0 0 0 15 250
17 4.1% 0% 21 0 21 0 0 0 0 21 230
18 6.1% 0% 31 0 31 0 0 0 0 31 199
19 6.6% 0% 33 0 33 0 0 0 0 33 166
20 6.8% 0% 34 0 34 0 0 0 0 34 132
21 6.3% 0% 32 0 32 0 0 0 0 32 100
22 5.5% 0% 28 0 28 200 0 200 172 0 273
23 1.7% 0% 9 0 9 200 0 200 191 0 464
273
Total 100% 100% 502 411 913 913 0 913 913 1826 9
Regulation
s 301.29 Max 961

58
Tank 3
Pump Only in off Peak

Demand Demand Total Total Total

percentage Percentage Domestic Agricultural Hourly Well Total Filling Emptying tank
Hours Domestic Agricultrue/Industry Demand Demand Demand Supply Mekorot Supply Tank Tank level

24 1331

0 1.1% 0% 5 0 5 200 0 200 195 0 1526

1 1.0% 0% 5 0 5 200 0 200 195 0 1721

2 1.1% 0% 5 0 5 200 0 200 195 0 1916

3 1.2% 0% 5 0 5 200 0 200 195 0 2111

4 1.4% 0% 6 0 6 200 0 200 194 0 2305

5 1.9% 0% 9 0 9 200 0 200 191 0 2496

6 6.3% 10% 29 228.1 257 137 0 137 0 120 2376

7 6.6% 10% 30 228.1 258 0 0 0 0 258 2118

8 7.6% 10% 35 228.1 263 0 0 0 0 263 1855

9 8.0% 10% 36 228.1 265 0 0 0 0 265 1591

10 7.0% 10% 32 228.1 260 0 0 0 0 260 1331
11 5.5% 10% 25 228.1 253 0 0 0 0 253 1077
12 5.4% 10% 25 228.1 253 0 0 0 0 253 825
13 2.0% 10% 9 228.1 237 0 0 0 0 237 587

14 1.9% 10% 9 228.1 237 0 0 0 0 237 351

15 1.9% 10% 9 228.1 237 0 0 0 0 237 114
16 3.0% 0% 14 0 14 0 0 0 0 14 100
17 4.1% 0% 19 0 19 200 0 200 181 0 281
18 6.1% 0% 28 0 28 200 0 200 172 0 454
19 6.6% 0% 30 0 30 200 0 200 170 0 624
20 6.8% 0% 31 0 31 200 0 200 169 0 793
21 6.3% 0% 29 0 29 200 0 200 171 0 964
22 5.5% 0% 25 0 25 200 0 200 175 0 1139
23 1.7% 0% 8 0 8 200 0 200 192 0 1331
Total 100% 100% 456 2281 2737 2737 0 2737 2737 5474 8211
Regulations 903.21 Max 2496

59