Energy Balance For A Water Distribution System

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016 426
Energy Balance for a Water Distribution System

Tom Walski, F.ASCE1
1
Bentely Systems, 3 Brains Place Nanticoke, PA 18634. E-mail: tom.walski@bentley.com
Abstract
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University Of British Columbia on 06/29/16. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The paper presents the equations for performing an energy balance on a water distribution
system. It also discusses the meaning of the results and whether there is any application in
practical design and operation of a water system.
INTRODUCTION
“Where is all of our energy going” might be a question a water distribution manager might ask
when budgeting for energy costs. There should be a fairly easy answer to this question in that the
energy can be used to lift water, overcome pipe friction, be lost through control valves, generate
power or be delivered as energy to the customers’ taps.
Every utility has its own topography and has been developed in its own unique way. Systems fed
by gravity use up most of the energy through control valves to reduce pressure and possibly
generate energy through turbines. In the other hand systems that take water from a low lying
reservoir or a set of wells use most of their energy to raise water to the level of its customers.
Quantifying where the energy goes can be a straightforward process based on an energy balance.
One of the earliest papers by Pelli and Hitz (2000) proposed the concept of “minimum energy”
which was essentially the energy needed to lift the water and provide a reasonable service
pressure which they defined as 6 bar (88 psi) based on the authors experience in Switzerland.
They proposed two indicators which included the “structural indicator” which was the energy
required to deliver the water in kilowatt hours per cubic meter and the “quality indicator” which
was the ratio of the energy used over the minimum energy required.
Filion, Maclean and Karney (2004) proposed an approach involving life cycle costing or energy
which pointed to the benefits of recovering energy where possible. Fortana, Giugni and
Portolano (2012) indicated that reducing the energy delivered to customers also reduced the
energy that was lost though leakage as well as reducing leakage.
Cabrera et al. (2010) and Hernandez et al. (2010) proposed an energy audit method that
accounted to all sources and sinks of energy and attempted to distinguish between leaks and
water used by customers. They defined some additional indictors such as the fraction of energy
that went to friction. Cabrera et al. (2015) extended the work to provide indicators of where
energy savings could be achieved.
Dziedzic and Karney (2015) developed their own energy balance and applied it to the Toronto
water distribution system. They found a roughly even split between energy used to raise the
water, energy to overcome losses and energy delivered to the customer. Pipes that used a great
deal of energy could be candidates for rehabilitation or paralleling.
© ASCE
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

There have been numerous papers/manuals on energy management AWWA (2015), Leiby and
Burke (2011), US EPA (2008), Walski (2011) and WEF (2009) but most have not looked at
characterizing energy use before getting into energy use reduction.
ENERGY BALANCE
An energy balance for a water distribution system should include all sources and sinks for energy
in a way that the sum of energy inputs should equal the energy consumed. The basic logic is
simple—energy in equals energy out plus change in energy stored in tanks. This can be written
as
Energy at sources + ∆Energy at pumps =

∆Energy lost in pipe friction
+ ∆Energy lost in valves
+ ∆Energy recovered at turbines
+ Energy used to raise the water to node elevation
+ Energy delivered to customers or leaks
+ ∆Energy at tanks
This energy should be the energy input or consumed over some period of time in units such as
kilowatt hours. Methods to calculate each of these terms are presented in the subsections below.
The changes in energy at elements are the change upstream and downstream of the pump, valves,
pipe, etc. The change in energy at the tank is the change in energy over the time period under
consideration.
Energy at source. There is energy associated with each water source based on the source’s
position in the earth’s gravitational field. This term can be written
( − ) ∆
Where n = number of sources, m = number of time increments, γ= specific weight, 62.4 lb/ft3, k
= 3.766x10-7 kwhr/ft-lb, zi = elevation of i-th source, ft, datum = vertical datum for system, ft, Qij
= outflow from i-th source at j-th time step, cfs, ∆tj = length of j-th time step, sec
The datum can be virtually any value but it is best to set it to sea level, some offset from sea level
or the elevation of the lowest customer.
Energy at pumps. This represents the sum of the water power added at each pump. It is not the
wire power from the power utility but only includes the energy actually added to the water.
(ℎ ) ∆
© ASCE

Where n = number of pumps, hpij = head added at i-th pump during j-th time step, ft, Qij = flow
through i-th pump during j-th time step, cfs.
If the energy provided to the pump (wire power) is to be used in these calculations, then the loss
of energy through inefficiency in the motor, pump and variable speed drives must be accounted
for as uses of energy.
Energy lost from pipe head loss. This term represents energy loss in the pipe due to pipe friction
and fixed minor losses, but does not include head loss due to control valves.
ℎ | |∆
Where hlij = head loss in i-th pipe during j-th time step, ft, Qij = flow through i-th pipe during j-th
time step, cfs
The absolute value sign is needed in this term, because unlike most other terms, the flow in a
pipe can go in either direction and in either direction, energy is used. In most other energy terms
flow can only occur in one direction.
Energy lost at valves. This term represents the energy lost through control valves and throttled
valves.
(ℎ ) ∆
Where hvij = energy loss at i-th control valve at j-th time step, ft
Energy provided to turbines. This represents energy extracted from the water at turbines.
(ℎ ) ∆
Where htij = energy transfer to i-th turbine during j-th time step, ft
Energy from elevation. This term accounts for the energy involved in lifting the water to the
elevation of the customers. While strictly speaking, the elevation of each faucet and orifice
should be considered, the elevation of the model nodes is a reasonable approximation.
( − ) ∆
Where zi = elevation of the i-th node, ft, Qij = water use at i-th node during j-th time step, cfs
© ASCE

Energy delivered to the customer. This term represents the energy that actually reaches the
customer. It is calculated based on the pressure head of the water at the node.
(ℎ ) ∆
Where hprij = pressure head at the i-th node at j-th time step, ft
Change in energy at tanks. This term represents the energy that leaves the system into tanks
when tank if filling or re-enters the system when tanks are draining. There are two different ways
to consider tanks depending on whether flow into a tank is: 1. Energy leaving the distribution
system or 2. Energy in the system being stored in the tank. In the first case, flow into a tank is a
loss of energy which is regained when the flow re-enters the system. In the latter, the energy is
added to the energy in the system. Both approaches can work. Usually, the change in water level
(and hence energy) in tanks is fairly small in comparison with other sources and sinks of energy.
With the first approach, a tank can just be viewed as another user of energy but one that can give
energy back to the system when flow leaves the tank. A simple approximation for change in
energy at tanks can be given by:
(ℎ( ))( − )
Where Vif = volume of water at final time, ft3, Vio = volume of water at initial time, ft3, h(ave) =
average hydraulic grade elevation in tank over time, ft
EXAMPLE CALCULATIONS
The energy balance was calculated for two example systems to illustrate how the calculations
should be performed.
The first system was a gravity fed system with a single source as shown in Figure 1 based on the
Micropolis system developed by Brumbelow et al. It consisted of 90 pipes and 59 junctions.
With no pumps, control valves or tanks, the energy balance was a comparison of source energy
with the energy lost in piping, the energy of elevation of customers and the energy delivered to
the customers.
© ASCE

Figure 1. System 1. Nodes are scaled by demand
The results for an energy balance based on a 24 hour simulation are summarized below.
Energy Type Energy, kwhr Energy, kwhr

(Datum =1000) (Datum=1017)
Source 363 319
Elevation 97 52
Customers 260 260
Pipe Loss 6 6
The energy sums to zero as expected. However, most of the energy appears to be in the form of
pressure delivered to customers. The datum used in this calculation was 1000 ft. and the
elevation of the lowest junction was 1017 ft. If the elevations used in the source and elevation
types were changed to 1017 ft, then the values shown in the third column of the table could be
calculated.
As shown in Figure 2, the calculations showed that in this system, virtually all of the energy
from the source was delivered to the customers.
© ASCE

Energy In Energy Out

Pipes
Elevation
Source
Customers
Figure 2. Source and sinks of energy in System 1
The second system considered is shown in Figure 3. While it is not large (73 pipes, 46 junctions),
it contains much more complexity than the first in that it contained four pumps, three tanks, one
pressure reducing valve and three pressure zones.
© ASCE

Figure 3. System 2
In this case, there are significantly more types of energy that must be considered. These are
summarized in Table
Energy Type Energy, kwhr

Source 76
Pumps 786
Elevation 237
Customers 413
Pipes 152
PRV 3
Tank 34
In this system, the energy was provided by pumping but as with the earlier example, most of the
energy went into customer usage as opposed to lifting the water or overcoming friction in pipes.
The PRV only served a small portion of the system, so energy lost there was minimal. As
expected, over the course of a day, the net energy into or out of the tanks was not significant. The
balance is shown in Figure 4.
© ASCE


Tank
PRV
Pipes
Pumps Elevation
Customers
Source
Figure 4. Sources and sinks of energy in system 2
The present energy balance treats pumps based on water power added into the system. If the
balance was modified to include energy purchased from the power supplier, it would be
necessary to include energy lost due to inefficiency in the pump and motor. In such a case,
Figure 4 would be modified into Figure 5.
DISCUSSION
The energy balance method presented here can provide a water utility with a way to account for
energy used. It gives a means to compare energy consumption between different types of water
systems. Systems that are gravity fed will use most of their energy through pressure reducing
valves while those pumping water from deep wells will use very large quantities of energy in
pumping.
© ASCE


Tank
PRV
Pipes
Elevation
Pumps
Inefficiency
Customers
Source
Figure 5. Energy balance for System 2 including pump and motor inefficiency
While an energy balance can be used to categorize systems according to how they obtain and use
energy, it can’t be used to judge systems because some systems are blessed with water sources at
high elevations while others must pump water up to great elevations. These elevations can’t be
readily changed. However, a utility with multiple sources can gain an appreciation of how
mixing sources can affect the energy balance. IT is not clear how an energy balance can be used
in design or operation of a water system.
Depending on the size of the system, head loss in piping can be significant. However, most head
loss occurs in only handful of large transmission mains due to the fact that at least in North
America, distribution pipes are sized for large fire flow such that both the flow and the head loss
terms for most pipes is small to negligible.
While an energy balance can be performed based on steady state conditions, conditions vary over
time during the course of a day such that it is best to perform these calculations based on at least
a 24 hour period. This also minimizes the effects of water level fluctuations in distribution
storage tanks which in the long run must be essentially zero.
By itself, an energy balance won’t affect energy consumption. However, it can point out areas
where energy use can be impacted. For example, if energy is being dissipated through pressure
reducing valves, the energy balance may point to places where turbines to recover energy are
© ASCE

significant. If most of the energy is being lost due to pipe friction, it may point to places where
piping can be paralleled or cleaned to reduce head loss. If the energy delivered to customers
appears excessive, control valve or variable speed pumping settings can be modified to reduce
energy use and possibly reduce leakage.
CONCLUSIONS
An energy balance can provide insights into how energy is being obtained and used in a water
system. In general the balance can be used to compare between systems but it is not certain
whether this can become a practical engineering tool.
REFERENCES
AWWA (2015) Energy Management for Water Utilities, American Water Works Association,
Denver, Co.
Brumbelow, K., J. Torres, S. Guikema, E. Bristow, and L. Kanta. (2007) Virtual cities for water
distribution and infrastructure system research. Proc. World Environmental and Water
Resources Congress 2007: Restoring Our Natural Habitat, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Cabrera, E., Pardo, M. E., Cobacho, R., Cabrera, E. (2010). Energy Audit of Water
Networks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 136 (6): 669-677.
Cabrera E., Gómez E., Cabrera E. Jr, Soriano J., and Espert V. (2015) Energy Assessment of
Pressurized Water Systems, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol.
141, No. 8, doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000494.
Dziedzic, R. and Karney, B.W. (x) Energy Metrics for Water Distribution System Assessment: A
Case Study of the Toronto Network, Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, Vol. 141, No. 11, 04015032, DOI:10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-
5452.0000555.
Filion, Y., MacLean, H. and Karney, B., 2004, Life Cycle Energy Analysis of a Water
Distribution System, Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 10(3), 120-130.
Fontana N., Giugni M. and Portolano D., 2012. Losses Reduction and Energy Production in
Water-Distribution Networks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
May-June 2012, pp 237 – 244.
Hernández, Pardo, Cabrera, and Cobacho, R. (2010) “Energy Assessment of Water Networks:
A Case Study”, Tucson, Az. Water Distribution Systems Analysis 2010, 1168-1179,
Tucson, AZ.
Leiby, V. and Burke, M. (2011) Enegy Efficiency Best Practices for North American Drinking
Water Utilities, Water Research Foundation, Denver, Co.
Pelli, T., Hitz, H. U. (2000). Energy indicators and savings in water supply. American Water
Works Association Journal. 92 (6): 55-62.
US EPA (2009) Ensuring a Sustainable Future: An Energy Management Guidebook for
Wastewater and Water Utilities, US Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Wastewater Management, GS-10F-0337M.
Walski, T. (2011) Practical Tips for Reducing Energy Use, Computing and Control for the Water
Industry, Exeter, UK.
WEF (2009) Energy Conservation in Water and Wastewater Facilities, Water Environment
Federation, Manual of Practice 32, Alexandria, VA.
© ASCE

Energy Balance For A Water Distribution System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy Balance For A Water Distribution System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016 426

Energy Balance for a Water Distribution System

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

Energy at sources + ∆Energy at pumps =

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

Figure 1. System 1. Nodes are scaled by demand

Energy Type Energy, kwhr Energy, kwhr

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

Energy In Energy Out

Figure 2. Source and sinks of energy in System 1

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

Energy Type Energy, kwhr

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

Energy In Energy Out

Figure 4. Sources and sinks of energy in system 2

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

Energy In Energy Out

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2016

You might also like