Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Feasibility Study of laying Trunk and Gravity
Design and costing
At Poundbury
25th April 2021
Contents
1) Introduction
2) Investigation of routes
3) Options considered
a. Justification for selection pipe routes
b. Pipe design
4) Costs
5) Pump
6) Pressure surges
7) Conclusions
8) Appendices
A. Plans and long sections (including the HGL) of all routes considered
B. Design calculations
C. Cost spreadsheets
D. Information relevant to pump selection
E. Information relevant to pressure surge protection
1) Introduction:
Is to design two pipe system which includes pump trunk main and gravity distribution main for supplying treated drinking water to 2000 new houses at Poundbury. In view of the increased developments in the area such as private housing, retail shops, pubs, restaurants and other businesses in the area, the current water supply will not be able to sustain for the economic expansion of the town.
The design is provided a trunk main route from Borton PS 59.45m AOD to Lamberts Hill (155.7m AOD) reservoir and a gravity distribution main from Lamberts Hill to Poundbury 110.0m AOD because the problem with the existing Dorchester water tower is at a lower level 108mAOD compared to Poundbury. The new water pipe system will be able to supply drinking water to the community and sustain the booming economy for decades to come. The design will be in line/according to the Wessex-water standards and should also be able to cater for future extension in it.
Project objective:
The aim is to provide a feasibility study on the pumped trunk main design and the gravity main design from the two proposed materials that is cast iron DI pipe and UPVC PE pipe. The proposal will access the flow rate, pipe selective diameter from industry, maximum pressure in the system, head loss in pipe and pipe design arrangement by using the following methods.
Method 1: Darcy equation and Moddy Diagram
Method 2: C-W equation and H-R walling ford look up tables.
Project will incorporate the best suitable route design trunk main from the pump station to the reservoir and gravity main reservoir to Poundbury along with advice on the need for pressure protection in the piping system. The feasibility study will provide the most cost-effective solutions and economical design to that the project if it will be feasible prior before the approval and implementation.
2) Route Investigation:
When planning pipe layout there are several constraints that must be assessed and considered as a form of site investigation. The site feasibility will evaluate the ground condition and geological factors of the surrounding are.
Ground condition:
According to geological map of Britain viewer: Bedrock and superficial deposits. The soil condition for the proposed pipe layout are composed of chalk material which are one of the ideal soil condition for trench pipe laying. The pipe design from trunk main and gravity main will be entirely lay on are composed of chalk, so precaution needs to be taken not to lay the pipe on other soil type that may cause geotechnical effect on the piping system. http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html.
Crossing:
When preparing the design, consideration should be taken to avoid road, railway, river crossing as much as possible. Farmed land and private properties should be avoided but the issue with Google earth is that its very difficult to identify private property boundaries and the land used planned on the area. Any crossing will be incorporated in to the cost and reinstated to its original state.
Sensitive area:
Area such as scientific interests, historical monuments and wildlife sanctuary which has aesthetic beauty should be avoided completely as it may cause delay in the project due to the fact it may take years to get approval to access these areas. Areas with outstanding beauty must be integrated in the cost and restored to its original natural state.
Site condition for the pipe
Slope:
The ground elevation must minimise crest and through as it may create pressure drop in the pipe system.
Pipe access:
Avoid meandering to reduce frictional head losses (hf) in piping system.
Pipe will be laid at the depth of 0.9m to 1.3m below ground level.
Lay pipe in field to minimise cost and reduce risk such as siphon phenomenon and negative pressure development in the trunk main design. (Negative pressure develop in pipe fitting will absorb contaminants in the environment).
Install twin pipe under road and rail crossing in case one is damaged the other can be used as an alternative. First it will increase the installation cost, but it will be a worthwhile investment for the long term. (It to mitigate heavy civil work when pipe are damaged in the future).
Hydraulic:
The right pipe size should be designed in away as the friction head losses is minimum, but the energy should be high enough along hydraulic gradient so that water will be able to flow above the house in accordance to the Wessex-Water standard(check google for more information ) .
Pump water by creating an artificial energy to carry water up the pipe to the reservoir. The energy should be above the reservoir to frictional losses of energy in the system would be accounted for as water flow in the reservoir.
3) Options considered: (pipe disagen )
a) Justification for selection pipe routes
Choose areas with less bends
Avoid crossing areas that can inflate the project cost
Avoid private properties/areas
Prevent frictional loss
Ensuring no stagnant water remains in the pipes for than 12 hours
Maximum pressure in pipes should be less than 60 bar
The pipe sizes diameters have a high sensitivity towards frictional loss so the right size calculation is very important to minimize loss. ( dont use it )
b) Pipe design
Pipe material: DI and PE pipe(google )
DI Trunk Main
The objective is to design and select the appropriate pipe size for trunk main route from Borton PS to Lamberts Hill to minimise the frictional head losses (hf).
Calculate frictional losses (hf) in pipe flow design (trunk pumped main) by use of 2 methods:
1ST METHOD : Darcy Equation & Moody Diagram
2ND METHOD : C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables
For selection of the appropriate pipe size the following values should be available as followed
1) Design flow rate Q=7Ml/day
2) Length of pipe L(km) and type of material: DI; Galvanised iron (normal condition) and PI; PVC
3) Start point Burton PS 59.45m AOD and end point at Lamberts Hill 155.7m AOD
4) Static lift = 155.70 – 59.47 = 96.23m
5) Assume velocity in pipe flow 1m/s according to Wessex-water standards (
Trunk main design:
Eq.1:
Head-loss of pipe(hf), friction factor(f), length(l), diameter (d or D), velocity(V) & acceleration due to gravity(g).
1st Method: Darcy Equation & Moody Diagram
Calculation of frictional (head) losses hf in an existing pumped main pipe flow by use of Darcy Equation (Refer to Appendix B)
Max pressure of total 10.71bars should be less than 16bars according to Wessex-water standards. 10.71
(Where 1m=0.098041bars)
Pressure check : For min pressure in the system
Min pressure in the system should be equal least 6m
Min pressure = 6m everywhere, therefore will be installing pressure sustaining valve (PSV) closers to end point of the Reservoir where the risks is higher to experience pressure less than 6m.
2nd Method: C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables
Calculation of frictional (head) losses hf in an existing pumped main pipe flow by use of Colebrook-White equation (0939) (C-W) (Refer to Appendix B)
Eq.9
Velocity(V), Pipe diameter(d), Hydraulic gradient(S), Effective roughness(K) and Kinematic viscosity (
(1) Step 1 : Repeat 1st step from method 1:
(2) Step 2: Repeat 2nd Step from method 1: and Pipe Diameter: 350mm
Gravity Main Design
The objective is to design and select the appropriate pipe size for each selected gravity main routes from Lamberts Hill to Poundbury to minimise the frictional head losses (hf).
Calculate frictional losses (hf) in pipe flow design (trunk pumped main) by use of 2 methods:
2ND METHOD : C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables
For selection of the appropriate pipe size the following values should be available as followed
a) Design flow rate Q=120 l/s
b) Length of pipe L(km) and type of material: DI; Galvanised iron (normal condition) and PE; UPVC
c) Start point Lamberts Hill SR 155.70m AOD and end point at Poundbury 110.00m AOD
d) Lamberts Hill SR (Poundbury max elevation + required delivery head) =
Assume hf = 155.7 (110.0 + 20) = 155.7 130 = 25.7m
e) Assume velocity in pipe flow 1.0m/s according to Wessex-water standards ()
Gravity main design:
Eq.9: Gradient
Head-loss of pipe(hf) and length(L)
DI and PE PIPE: Gravity Main
2nd Method: C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables:
Calculation of frictional (head) losses hf in an existing pumped main pipe flow by use of Darcy Equation (Refer to Appendix B)
Pressure check :
a) At area where pipe from ground elevation has troughs. The lowest trough: risk of high pressure 35m(standard) therefore it is recommended to install Pressure reducing valves (PRV). 3
b) There is highest risk to have max pressure to the downstream end of pie, in times of very low flow, therefore it is recommended to stall Pressure reducing valve (PRV) at the downstream end of the pipe.
c) At area where pipe from ground elevation has peaks. Highest peak, risk of low pressure or even negative ones, therefore it is recommended to install pressure increasing valves at this point.
Pipe elements required for the routes; Calculating fitting losses: Refer to Appendix B: Table 3.
Types of fittings:
Pump manifold: Roughness value for 1 manifold is K1= 1.
Swabbing chambers: ; Swabbing chambers @ every 2.5km of pipe length
Long radius bends:
In line valves: In line valves every 2km of pipe length
Air valves: one air valves needed
Isolating valves for each crossing:
In line tees for future expansion plans:
Wash outs: to clear out sediment and prevent discoloration
4. Costs:
(refer appendix D)
The capital expenditure calculation for CAPX and OPEX are based on input costing data available from Baro Happold. The calculation expenditure is covered for 60 years project life cycle with net present value of £1 at 6%.
Trunk main/Gravity main:
The cost expenditure for pipe design are from the same size and the change in project cost are affected by the length of the pipe, pipe passing through sensitive area and road/river crossing because they have a high rate £/m compared to pipe lay in field area. From the capital expenditure total cost, it clearly shows pipes which are shorter in length cost less and are more cost economic provided that the meet the design requirement with a low operation cost.
Trunk main DI pipe route 1 has the maximum CAPEX and OPEX cost of £5,930,207/- compare to route 4 which has the lowest CAPEX & OPEX cost of £5,580,854/-
Gravity main PE pipe route 1 has the lowest CAPEX and OPEX cost of £1,205,788/- compare to the same route 1 with DI pipe which has the CAPEX & OPEX cost of £1,240,733/-. Base on the analysis it more feasible and cost economic to select PE pipe material for the gravity main
5. Pump Selection:
Pump type: 5no 200x290x280 81/75x5x18.5=100HW as per appendix D
The primary reason for not choosing less pump is that at the beginning the cost of installation will be less but the power out put is high, thus it will cause a high operation cost as it require more energy to operate. That is why it is not feasible to consider series 3no to 4no and any formation with high power output. It is more advisable to consider a more cost economic pump installation in series like 5m pump or 6pump which has the lower power output of 100KW but if there are less pump in series that produces the same power out put of 100KW or less it might be considered in the design. As a result, it is more economical to select the 5m.200x290x280 with power output of 100KW.
Pump selection: by appendix D
The selected type of pump that will be used is an Armstrong 4300 pump with specific spec.
Curve no: PT113-1-1-1500
Series: 4300 Starline
Size: 200-290
RPM: 1500
Power: 81/75x5x18.5=100KW
Efficiency: 85%
Pump in series: 5no.200x290x280.
The operating pump: The pump system in series have been designed in by using the system curve and by looking at the point where the performance curve and system curve intercept. This is the point that define that the pump are suitable for the design. (Operating point is the point where system curve and operating curve cross.)
6. Pressure surge: (Refer to appendix E)
Is the sonic velocity, stiffness and fluid in the piping system which the roughness depends on time and the materials used. If the materials have more resistance to velocity, therefore any change in pressure and that will create a pressure surge in the pipe. Pressure surge consequence are fitting failure, pipe bursting and pump damage.
The graphs in appendix E represent pressure in pipe from two pipe size 350 and 400mm and from two different materials (D1 and PE).
D1 pipe: Pressure surge: 350mm pipe (ps-sr)
Node1: The closer the water nears a valve changes the stronger the pressure surge and it happens along the full length of the pipe. The pressure rises from 90(m) up to 184(m) then, down to 40(m). This happens consistence across the internal length of the pipe when the pressure surge phenomenon to place. More protection will be need to Node1 than to Node10. Node1 is more likely to be from pump to reservoir and vice versa.
Node3 & 6: The pipe system exerts pressure surge phenomenon but not as intense as in Node1. In Node3 the pressure rises up during a period of time until it reaches 162max and drop to near zero, where as in Node 6 its maximum rise is 130m then it drops to 60 and stable for a period of time until it drop to -20.
Node 10: The pressure changes but does not happen through the entire length of the pipe. It happens as a spick as the pressure rise up from 10(m) to 90(m). It only happens at a single point (Need less protection than Node1). In Node 10 the pressure takes longer period to form compared to Node 1.
D1=400mm: Model: Has similar effect as in D1350mm (the maximum pressure is near 150m and minimum is around -30(m).
Node3 & 6: Both pipe system in general experiences pressure surge. Node 3 rise up to nearly 140(m) and has a minimum pressure loss below -40(m) which equal to -3.9 bar which is below ?6m. Node 6 has similar effect. Therefore both pipe system will require pressure increasing valves at the lowest point.
Node 10: Same pressure surge as the Note 10 exert in D1 350m only difference is the maximum and minimum.
General:
The D1 350mm experience high pressure surge than in D1 400mm at different flow rates while D1 400mm experience lower pressure surge than in D1 350mm. That means that the size of pipe with different flow rates will experience pressure surge differently but the comparison between D1 pipe with PE pipe is that the PE has a high resistance to pressure surge due to its elastic and plasticity of UPVC.
7. Conclusion
To conclude the design analysis using 2nd Method: C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables to assess the flow rate, gradient, pipe size, frictional loss and maximum powers between DI and PE pipe along with capex and opex cost expenditure:
Trunk main pipe analysis shows that the pipe with the shortest length and less crossing are more feasible and economically viable to be used for this design.
Trunk main route selection are mostly similar, but its advisable to select the less cost effective that have less crossing and bending to minimize frictional head loss.
Gravity main: These two types of material DI and PE does not have much difference in comparison, when analysing route with the same length the only issue that differs is the velocity and retention time between them. PI material is more cost economic and durable. In additional it has a greater resistance to pressure surge compared to DI pipes. More thorough studies are needed to determine the best optimal design for route selection.
On a final note, the feasibility assessment will help to identify the best route that is more cost effective and sustainable and environmentally friendly. The pipes should be laid and tested in accordance with the manufacturers instructions and the Town and Country Planning Regulations.
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow |
Feasibility Study of laying Trunk and Gravity