Sei sulla pagina 1di 539

iiSBE NET ZERO BUILT ENVIRONMENT

Nature-Based Building Performance: Net Zero Energy, Water, Carbon, and Waste

Performance: Net Zero Energy, Water, Carbon, and Waste CONFERENCE PROCEEDING 17 T H RINKER INTERNATIONAL

CONFERENCE PROCEEDING

17 TH RINKER INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE

RINKER SCHOOL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

MARCH-2014

iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 Symposium

The iiSBE nZBE 2014 Symposium was held as an opportunity for design professionals, researchers, industry, and government to exchange information on research, case studies, and emerging best practices centered on the net zero built environment concept strategy. Although Net Zero Energy is the major theme, the working group also collaborated on other Nature-Based Building Performance such as Net Zero Energy, Water, Carbon, and Waste. Net zero is a strategy for setting performance targets for the built environment based on the local availability of renewable energy and water resources. For example, a net zero energy building produces as much energy from renewable sources as it consumes on an annual basis. The same basic approach would be used to define net zero water, carbon, and waste strategies. The symposium accepted the papers in the area of:

Designing low energy buildings in support of net zero energy strategies

Emerging strategies for net zero energy buildings

Technologies in support of net zero energy, water, carbon, and waste strategies

Net zero certification schemes

Regional, national, and local net zero strategies and programs

Case studies relevant to net zero energy, water, carbon solutions

Net zero energy communities

The nZBE Working Group is an international collaboration of academics, practitioners, and technologists that exchanges research and information about best practices to stimulate widespread adoption of net zero strategies. This was the first meeting of the iiSBE nZBE Working Group in North America and the intent is to create a dynamic international collaboration among parties interested in net zero built environment strategies. The next meeting of iiSBE nZBE will be hosted in Barcelona to foster the development of renewable and closed loop systems in conjunction with the built environment.

Scientific Committee:

(Members listed alphabetically)

William Braham, Ph.D. FAIA

Director, Master of Environmental Building Design Director, T C Chan Center for Building Energy & Sustainability University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Daniel Campbell, Ph.D.

Senior Systems Ecologist Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects US Environmental Protection Agency, Narragansett, Rhode Island, USA

Dru Crawley Ph.D., FASHRAE, AIA

Director, Building Energy Performance Products Bentley Systems, Inc. Washington D.C., USA

Vanessa Gomes, Ph.D.

Vice President, iiSBE Associate Professor. School of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Urbanism University of Campinas, Brazil

Daniel Nall, FAIA, P.E., LEED Fellow, BEMP, HBDP

Senior Vice President Thornton Tomasetti New York, New York, USA

Robert Ries, Ph.D., AIA

Director, M.E. Rinker, Sr. School of Building Construction University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Paul Torcellini

Group Manager for Commercial Buildings Research National Renewable Energy Laboratory Denver, Colorado, USA

Llewellyn Van Wyk, Ph.D.

Principal Researcher Building Environmental Unit (Building Science & Technology) Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, South Africa

Koshy Varghese, Ph.D.

Professor of Building Technology & Construction Management Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India

Sandy Wiggins

Principal, Consilience LLC & Aye Partners LLC Past Chair, US Green Building Council Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Organizers:

Dr. Charles J. Kibert (Conference chair)

Director of Powell Center for Construction & Environment Professor of Rinker School of Construction Management University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Dr. Ravi Srinivasan

Assistant Professor of Rinker School of Construction Management Powell Center Affiliate University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Dr. James Sullivan

Assistant Professor of Rinker School of Construction Management Powell Center Affiliate University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Dr. Lantz Holzhower

Ph.D. Student of Powell Center for Construction & Environment Instructor of Rinker School of Construction Management University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA

Powell Center Students:

Andrea M. valdes Shirley N. Morque Ruthwik Pasunuru Hamed Hakim

Editors:

Charles J. Kibert

Director of Powell Center for Construction & Environment

Ravi Srinivasan

Assistant Professor of Rinker School of Construction

Lantz Holzhower

Graduate Research Assistant, Powell Center Affiliate

Hamed Hakim

Graduate Research Assistant, Powell Center Affiliate

Ruthwik Pasunuru

Graduate Research Assistant, Powell Center Affiliate

Table of Contents

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 Symposium

iii

Scientific Committee

iv

Welcome

messages

4

Track I (NZW/ Water Efficeincy)

Value and Limits of Net Zero Energy, Water, and Agriculture

7

An optimization model for scaling distributed DPR systems

21

Strategies for Demand Reduction for Net Zero Water Discharge A Comparative Analysis of Jamia Millia Islamia University

33

Net-zero Building Water Cycle Decision Support

56

Urban Ambient Net-Zero Water Treatment and Mineralization: System Design and Field Performance

68

Exploring Air-Conditioning Condensate Recovery as a Water-Energy Infrastructure Synergy for Net Zero Buildings

78

Net Positive Water

92

Track II (NZE/ Net Zero Energy Concepts)

Incorporating Net Zero Energy Building Concepts within the Construction Management Curriculum at Roger Williams University

113

Shifting from Net-Zero to Net-Positive Energy Buildings

128

Energy Services Framework towards Net Zero Energy House implementation in Portugal

140

This Is Every Building: Achieving Market Rate Net-Zero-Ready

154

Mapping Design Decisions for Early Phases of Net-Zero Energy Building

173

Cost Control Best Practices for Net Zero Energy Building Projects

188

Technical and Business Solutions for Zero Net-Energy Ready and Zero Net- Energy Homes in the Hot Humid Climate

197

Renewable Energy as an Airport Revenue Generation Source

213

Cost Optimality and nZEB target in building renovation of Portuguese residential buildings

231

Zero Net Energy and Corporate Sustainability Affecting Global Corporations Today

242

Track III (Energy Efficient Strategies/Technologies)

Environment Adaptive Behaviors as User Satisfaction Assessment Criteria for Energy Efficient Cooling System Design

253

“Watts Per Person” Paradigm to Design Net Zero Energy Buildings: Examining Technology Interventions and Integrating Occupant Feedback to Reduce Plug Loads in a Commercial Building

264

Intelligent RNN Controller for domestic (residential) heating system

326

Multimodal Sensing of Thermal Discomfort for Adaptive Energy Saving in Buildings

344

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Toward a 3D Heat Transfer Analysis in Dynamic-BIM Workbench

356

Track IV (Impacts/ Assessment Methods)

Comparative Study of Environmental Performance of Primary Strength Grades of Ready-mixed Concretes

369

Ecological Advantageousness of Net-Zero-Energy Buildings: Assessment Methods

381

Closing Construction Materials Loops: A Case Study of Compressed Stabilized Earth Blocks as a Locally Available

Low Embodied Energy Walling Material

393

Urban Performance Simulations A Review

405

Track V (Case Studies / Residential-Commercial)

Energy Modelling as Part of a Comprehensive Residential NZE Strategy

414

Housing Refurbishment to Net Zero Energy Case Study

429

Improving building energy efficiency by “discovering hidden stars”: A case study from Australia

438

Analysis of Zero-Net Energy Districts; End Use, Urban Density and Energy Efficiency Prospects

451

Decommissioning Energy of Buildings A Case Study

465

Track VI (Case Studies / Educational Facilities)

Understanding the challenges for low impact retrofitting case study

476

NZEB Enhancement for a LEED Platinum Educational Facility

488

Life beyond operational stage: exploring lifecycle zero energy definitions

499

Analysis of Meadowbrook Elementary School Performance Towards Net Zero Energy

518

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Welcome messages:

Welcome to the University of Florida and the iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment Symposium 2014! Our goal is to facilitate an international collaboration of practitioners, academics, and policymakers to explore emerging net zero strategies, policy, technologies, and case studies. Net zero is a powerful idea that has rapidly gained public acceptance, captured its imagination, and is now prominent in the policies of the United States and Europe. It is a very simple concept, yet also a very complicated notion, and it provides hope that some of the ultimate goals of sustainability, living off local resources and closing resource loops, can in fact be achieved. It distills the issue of setting targets for a sustainable built environment into language that is both imaginative and reasonable and is consistent with the very core of sustainability. As a result, net zero likely represents the cutting edge of the evolution of sustainable construction. One of the hoped for outcomes of this Symposium is the formation of a permanent iiSBE working group that will continue the process of communicating relevant information about net zero built environment

directions to an international audience.

that you will become an active participant in its efforts to thoroughly explore this direction. We also hope to launch some initial conversations with our Florida colleagues about creating a Florida Net Zero Energy Schools Initiative that will take advantage of the exchange of information about the new crop of U.S. schools powered entirely by the sun that will occur in this Symposium. We wish you a stimulating, provocative, and productive Symposium and look forward to meeting you over the course of the next few days. We welcome any opportunity to help make your stay In Gainesville here as enjoyable as possible.

We hope you will consider joining this new working group and

Dr. Charles J. Kibert Professor & Director of the Powell Center for Construction & Environment

Welcome to the Net Zero Built Environment 2014 Symposium, the M. E. Rinker, Sr. School of Construction Management, and the University of Florida. About 20 years ago, the Rinker School hosted a seminal conference on sustainable construction that brought together some of the early thinking on how to improve the environmental performance of the built environment. The forward-looking qualities of the papers presented then gives an indication of how this symposium might be seen twenty years from now. The papers in the net zero symposium explore the question of how net zero should be implemented from several perspectives. Scales for zero net analysis range from building to urban region. The breadth of subjects range from the technical to business to policy development. Whether you prefer a technical viewpoint or would like to see net zero as a rallying cry for building scientists and the building community in general, the idea of net zero hits a sympathetic chord and gets people excited about the performance of the built environment, which is equally if not more important. The work presented here is meaningful because implementing net zero built environment strategies that lead to net zero built environments have the potential to significantly reduce environmental impact.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Reducing impact would improve environmental quality, improve quality of life, and lead to a better future for all.

I hope that you have a productive experience at the symposium and enjoy the hospitality and collegiality

of the Rinker School, the College of Design, Construction, and Planning, and the University of Florida.

Dr. Robert J. Ries Associate Professor & Director, M.E. Rinker Sr. School of Construction Management

I am very happy to be asked to give you a few words of welcome to this very important conference on Net Zero Built Environments.

There are lots of symposia and conferences that deal with building, but this one will deal with issues that are on the cutting edge of current research interest. The relationship of zero energy and very low emissions to climate change is obvious.

I am hoping to hear intensive explorations of zero operating energy, but also perhaps zero operating

emissions. Can we look for zero embodied energy and emissions? Not likely, but it is a worthy goal.

I am happy that the organizers decided to stretch the scope of this event to include Built Environment,

because I think that it will be hard to achieve such a high level of energy efficiency without going beyond single buildings; e.g. to look for on the synergies between different kinds of buildings, infrastructure and other systems in small urban areas.

Finally, I am happy that Charles Kibert and his colleagues have chosen to organize this event under the banner, since the symposium goals are very much aligned with those of our organization.

I hope that the Symposium will achieve its goals, while giving delegates a taste of warmer weather than that pervading the rest of North America.

Nils Larsson, FRAIC Executive Director of the International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Track I (NZW/ Water Efficiency)

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Value and Limits of Net Zero Energy, Water, and Agriculture

D. Lantz Holtzhower 1 , Kevin Priest 2 , Rodrigo Castro-Raventós 3 , Robert J. Ries 4

Rinker School of Construction Management, University of Florida 341 Rinker Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611 USA, Phone: 352-514-1074, Fax: 352-392-9606 Emails: 1 holtzhower@ufl.edu, 2 kymav7@ufl.edu, 3 rodcastro@ufl.edu, 4 rries@ufl.edu

Abstract

This paper explores the applicability, value, and limits of a net zero paradigm to systems such as energy, water, and agriculture. The study applies conventional net zero constraints at a residential scale, i.e., production of goods or appropriation and/or conversion of resources that meets demands within a given geographical boundary. Given variable energy demands and variable inputs in urban areas across the contiguous United States a broad brush analysis of the capability of urban regions to achieve net zero within a typical residential scale is examined. The analysis indicates that given current solar photovoltaic performance and the assumptions regarding residential footprints, 61% of the population in urban areas in the United States have the potential to be net zero in terms of residential energy use and 35% of the population could meet net zero water. In terms of agricultural production systems, the analysis shows that none of the urban areas can meet net zero food given a standard diet. The net zero paradigm most clearly applied to energy use in this analysis. Net zero as a paradigm for residential potable water consumption was not as clear cut, and extending it to production systems was found to be the least useful.

Keywords: net-zero impact, energy, water, production processes

1. Introduction

Net zero (NZ) as a paradigm can be applied to diverse systems such as energy, water, and goods production systems. However, limiting different systems by a geographic or spatial boundary may be more or less effective depending upon the characteristics of the system and the effects of distributed production on the optimal use of resources. The analysis of NZ energy, water, and food production across urban area clusters in the United States provided an opportunity to explore the applicability, value, and limits of applying NZ to three diverse systems. The NZ paradigm is similar to carrying capacity, or the ability of the human population to meet its needs given the productivity of economic or agricultural systems. These are long standing concerns (Malthus 1798) that have been examined in several different contexts (Ehrlich 1968, Brown 1981, Costanza and Daly 1992). NZ is perhaps closest in spirit to an approach to evaluating carrying capacity called ecological footprinting (Rees 1992, Wackernagel and Rees 1994, Rees and Wackernagel 1996). Ecological footprinting converts human population material and resource demands into the land area equivalents needed to meet those demands and compares the total land area equivalents needed for a population with the available land area. NZ seeks to meet demands given a bounded area. Net zero from

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

an energy standpoint often focuses on renewable electrical energy generation and consumption, typically at the building site scale. However, technological and site characteristics may limit on-site generation, and since electricity can be transmitted, there may be more optimal locations and scales for defining zero net energy systems. The NZ concept applied to water aims at balancing water demand and supply within a given areal boundary. This presupposes that the building system can procure an adequate water supply within its boundaries, typically from rainfall. The mass balance approach ignores the impacts of changes in land cover on the water cycle, which alter the system’s dynamics. For instance, impervious surfaces from the built environment increase run-off and reduce the infiltration of rain events. This alters stream-flow and reduces groundwater storage. Consequently, zero net water assessment at the building site scale may not minimize the impact on water resources at other hydrologically relevant scales such as the natural drainage basin. The NZ spatial constraints applied to goods production limits options for production systems. For example, food production requires resources such as land area, energy, and water; other products require raw materials and manufacturing facilities. There is likely to be more optimal strategies for locating production systems than distributed and duplicated across numerous sites. In the approach taken here, we calculate the productivity of bounded urban land areas and compare them to the energy, water, and food demands of the population in these areas. Urban area clusters (UACs) are home to about 80% of the population of the United States. The 3,535 UACs in the contiguous United States range from small towns to major cities and population density varies from 113 to 3,867 people per square kilometer. Assumptions regarding the demands for energy, water, and calories were made based on state average household energy use and potable water use based on average household size and building area, and the typical American diet. Inputs of solar energy, precipitation, and agricultural productivity allowed for estimation of the availability goods and resources. The available resources were compared to the demands for a typical residential household in each UAC to determine if the NZ constraint was met or not met. The hypothetical household has three inhabitants and a building area of approximately 220 square meters (U.S. Census 2013). A geographical information system was used to integrate the data and produce data and maps for analysis. The urban area cluster boundaries are from the Tiger Lines files (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b). The population data for the UACs are from the U.S. Census Gazetteer (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a).

2. Energy

There are four different definitions of net zero energy buildings (Torcellini and Pless 2010) that agree in that all specify renewable energy (RE) but differ on how net zero is calculated. We use net zero site energy, where a defined area produces at least as much RE as it uses in a year when accounted for at the site. The energy balance for each UAC is solely for residential buildings. For RE, we consider solar energy, more specifically, photovoltaics (PV). As shown in Figure 1, some regions in the United States are more or less suited for PV electricity production than others.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March Figure 1. Average solar insolation is represented in

Figure 1. Average solar insolation is represented in kilowatt hours per square meter per day (kWh/m 2 /day). The dark areas represent the UACs.

For converting insolation to annual kWh production per m 2 of PV, called the energy power density (EPD) in each UAC, Eq. 1 with a 97.5% inverter efficiency, a 85.0% derate factor, a 15.3% PV module efficiency and a 70.3% space efficiency was used. Space efficiency takes into account self-shading for ground mount and wind loading for roof mounted PV systems. The EPD for each UAC was generated using the monthly and annual average global horizontal irradiance for the United States (Perez et al

2002).

EPD = SI x IE x DF x ME x SE x Days/Year where:

EPD = Energy Power Density (kWh/m 2 -year) SI = Solar Insolation (kWh/m2-day) IE = Inverter Efficiency (.975) DF = Derate Factor (.85) ME = Module Efficiency (.153) SE = Space Efficiency (.7035)

(1)

Residential energy consumption data was derived from the 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS 2009). The non-electrical energy data were converted to kWh. A therm of natural gas contains approximately 29.31 kWh, a gallon of heating oil, 40.60 kWh, a gallon of propane 26.80 kWh, and a gallon of kerosene, 39.50 kWh. The conversion to kWh allowed for the comparison of whole house energy consumption across different fuel types and to PV production in kWh. Table 1 shows the average annual kWh per household per state. The annual household unit energy consumption (AUC) was converted to kWh/m 2 -yr using the average building area per household. Once the annual consumption and production were converted to kWh/m 2 -yr, the production and consumption could be compared and the balance claculated for all UACs as per Eq. 2.

NB e = EPD AUC

(2)

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Table 1. Average annual energy use per household per state in kilowatt hours.

StateName

kWh/kW

StateName

kWh/kW

StateName

kWh/kW

StateName

kWh/kW

StateName

kWh/kW

Alabama

23,508.96

Idaho

30,776.97

Michigan

36,147.73

New York

30,079.68

Tennessee

23,080.75

Arizona

19,326.13

Illinois

37,746.30

Minnesota

33,118.25

North Carolina

21,192.60

Texas

22,611.49

Arkansas

24,208.89

Indiana

30,763.48

Mississippi

23,508.96

North Dakota

33,118.25

Utah

30,776.97

California

18,025.06

Iowa

33,118.25

Missouri

29,360.71

Ohio

30,763.48

Vermont

33,894.96

Colorado

30,063.85

Kansas

29,815.89

Montana

30,776.97

Oklahoma

24,208.89

Virginia

25,163.81

Connecticut

33,894.96

Kentucky

23,508.96

Nebraska

29,815.89

Oregon

22,304.62

Washington

22,304.62

Delaware

33,894.96

Louisiana

24,208.89

Nevada

24,981.50

Pennsylvania

28,242.24

West Virginia

25,163.81

Dist. of Columbia

26,043.69

Maine

33,894.96

New Hampshire

33,894.96

Rhode Island

33,894.96

Wisconsin

30,261.70

Florida

16,318.05

Maryland

33,894.96

New Jersey

37,328.63

South Carolina

21,192.60

Wyoming

30,776.97

Georgia

26,238.90

Massachusett

32,068.95

New Mexico

24,981.50

South Dakota

33,118.25

   

s

3. Water

Unlike solar energy, water is a finite resource that constantly flows through the hydrologic cycle. Freshwater represents only about 1% of the water available globally (Healy et al. 2007) which means that while water is abundant, only a small fraction is available for human and other ecosystem uses without energy intensive water treatment. Rainfall varies geographically as shown in Figure 3.

Rainfall varies geographically as shown in Figure 3. Figure 2. Precipitation distribution across the contiguous

Figure 2. Precipitation distribution across the contiguous United States.

The NZ concept applied to water aims at balancing water demand and supply within a given areal

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

boundary. In one interpretation, this presupposes that the building system can procure an adequate water supply within its boundary either in the form of rainfall, surface, or groundwater while mitigating impacts on the hydrologic cycle. The built environment impacts the hydrologic cycle through changes in land cover and water abstraction. Land cover determines how precipitation partitions into run-off, infiltration and evapotranspiration. For instance, the substitution of vegetated land cover by impervious surfaces increases run-off and reduces infiltration which impacts groundwater renewal and its contribution on stream-flow. In addition, water abstraction from surface and groundwater systems translate into changes in stream-flow volume and variability. This is relevant for ecosystem health (Arthington et al. 2006), and the subject of environmental or ecological flow standards (Richter et al. 2006 and Poff et al. 2010). Consequently, the application of the NZ paradigm to water depends on evaluating the performance of a building site within the drainage basin. For the purposes of this paper, rainwater harvesting is the method chosen for supplying household water needs. Rainwater harvesting will be evaluated based on the potential collected by geographical location and its impact on stream flow volume. This will allow assessing the applicability of the paradigm at different spatial levels: single household as well as the UAC level. Finally, the NZ water paradigm is applied to all UACs at the national level and the results reviewed. The drainage basin is the spatial unit that captures the flow of water from the hydrologic cycle into the mass balance equation (3). Precipitation (P) falls into a drainage basin and interacts with its surface. On one hand, it equals stream-flow or run-off (Q), evapotranspiration (ET) losses and changes in storage (ΔS). Under a long term equilibrium, where infiltration balances out with base-flow from groundwater into stream-flow, changes in storage can be ignored.

into stream-flow, changes in storage can be ignored. (3) For the purpose of this study, the

(3)

For the purpose of this study, the rainwater harvesting potential (RH pot ) of an area (UA) is given by equation (4), where the average collection efficiency is approximately 80% (Gould 1999). However, this value represents the upper boundary of water capture. Sustainable limits of water collection require considering both the evapotranspiration demands and the preservation of ecological flows within the drainage basin.

preservation of ecological flows within the drainage basin. (4) Evapotranspiration embodies the metabolic demand of

(4)

Evapotranspiration embodies the metabolic demand of water by local vegetation and the resulting evaporation from intercepted water flows. In a sense, this represents the natural water demands from the ecosystem. The resulting balance as accounted by run-off represents the ecological flows, or the hydrologic regime on which local ecosystems have adapted for their survival. This regime includes temporal variability in its flow. However, for the purposes of this analysis, the cumulative annual flow will be considered only on its total volume as presented in equation (5), where changes in soil water storage are considered negligible.

changes in soil water storage are considered negligible. (5) Ecological flows refer to the natural stream-flow

(5)

Ecological flows refer to the natural stream-flow variability that is partly responsible for river systems health. It includes a ±20% presumptive standard for environmental flow protection (Richter et al 2011).

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

This establishes a range on which run-off can vary without having a negative impact on riverine ecosystems. By aiming at preserving the ecological flows within a range of ±20% of its original flow, a benchmark for water collection can be established. Thus, equation (6) calculates the volume of rainwater that can be harvested annually within the limits of the annual benchmark stream-flow (Q). This does not consider the monthly or seasonal variability of precipitation and stream-flow, which should be accounted for in more detailed calculations. For an in-depth assessment of seasonal water availability see Hoekstra et al. 2012.

of seasonal water availability see Hoekstra et al. 2012. (6) The carrying capacity provided by rainwater

(6)

The carrying capacity provided by rainwater harvesting at a building site and at other spatial level (i.e. urban centers or county-level) can be evaluated by subtracting the domestic water use (DO use ) from the ecological rainwater harvesting (RH eco ) volume. Similarly, equation (7) can also expand upon the value of domestic water use to differentiate between indoor (DO in ) and outdoor use (DO out ). The resulting balance (NB w ) will show if the selected area is capable of satisfying its population water needs. When the balance is zero or positive, the area can sustain its water demand through rainwater harvesting.

can sustain its water demand through rainwater harvesting. (7) The hydrological capacity of the environment to

(7)

The hydrological capacity of the environment to support human settlements through rainwater harvesting is studied at two different spatial levels in the contiguous United States. The first involves the use of urban area boundaries, and the second, the building site level. The analyses use a geographic information system (GIS) to evaluate total domestic freshwater withdrawals at both levels for 2010 populations, and calculate the balance between potential rainwater harvesting and domestic water demand.

3.1 Urban area level

The urban boundaries are overlaid with 30-year precipitation and evapotranspiration averages that cover years 1971-2000 from Sanford and Selnick (2013) based on the PRISM climate dataset (Daly et al 2008). The result is a map with precipitation and evapotranspiration average values for the UACs. Available run-off for rainwater harvesting is calculated using equations (5) and (6). The domestic water use data was extracted from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) water use report for 2005 at the county level (USGS 2005). Freshwater withdrawals for domestic use include public supply and self-supplied volumes. Domestic water use per capita was calculated by dividing total freshwater withdrawals for domestic use by county population for the year 2005. Then, the per capita value was multiplied by 2010 population in the UAC to estimate domestic water use for 2010. Finally, the net balance (NB w ) between available rainwater harvesting (RH eco ) and domestic water (DO use ) is calculated. The results show the water carrying capacity of urban areas across the United States.

4. Production

Next, the net zero paradigm is applied to food production as an example goods production system. While food production may or may not be a consideration during building design and construction, applying the NZ concept to food production could potentially impact the built environment and urban planning. Similar to energy and water, the availability and productivity of food systems are heavily

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

dependent on climate, rainfall and land. According to the USDA’s 2010 Dietary Guidelines, the average semi-active adult needs between 2,000 and 2,500 calories per day to be considered healthy (USDA 2010). Of course, the source of these calories can vary widely. The USDA recommends reducing the intake of foods containing high levels of sodium and dietary cholesterol; other recommendations include reducing saturated fatty acids, solid fats, added sugars and refined grains (Trumbo, 2002). Foods with high levels of whole grains, lean protein, and free or low-fat dairy are recommended. As always, an increased amount of fruits and vegetables are recommended in the report. For the purposes of this study, 2,200 calories per person per day are used, and the recommended percentages of carbohydrates (47%), proteins (23%) and fats (30%) are followed and broken down into food products as shown in Table 2. A typical selection of food is made and the single sourced items in terms of area are used to determine the requisite area needed.

Table 2. Standard food diet and land area required for the United States.

Food Type

Serving

Total

Protein

Carbohydrate

Fat

Land Area Required (square meter per serving)

Amount

Calories

 

(% of Calories)

Apple

1

Large

110

0

5

0

14.77

Bagel

1

Regular

278

2

11

1

 

Beef

6

oz

197

6

0

2

65,941.99

Bread

2

slices

138

1

4

1

 

Broccoli

0.75 cup

25

0

1

0

2.89

Cheese

0.5 cup

228

3

0

8

76,318.65

Eggs

2

Large

143

2

0

4

0.88

Milk

1

cup

83

2

2

0

27,782.67

Potato

1

Regular

346

1

7

9

36.13

Brown Rice

1

cup

244

1

8

2

87.98

Chicken Salad

2

cups

171

4

2

2

0.74

Yogurt

6

oz

173

1

6

1

 

Beer

12 oz

64

0

1

0

 

Total

2,200

23

47

30

170,186.70

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Proteins and carbohydrates represent nearly two thirds of the required 2,200 calories per day. Fats are included as 75% protein and 25% carbohydrates. Forty two acres are needed for this prototypical diet. However, the diet is simplified and does not include many of the multi-ingredient prepared foods in the typical diet. Therefore, the estimated land area is rounded to 50 acres or 202,350 m 2 per person. Figure 3 shows cultivated and non-cultivated land area (USDA 2007) and the UACs. The map does not show all farmland in the contiguous United States, but it does show the predominant relationship of farm land and UACs.

show the predominant relationship of farm land and UACs. Figure 3. Cultivated agricultural lands and the

Figure 3. Cultivated agricultural lands and the urban area clusters (UAC).

Per county agricultural land data is used to calculate a ratio of agricultural land (AL act ) to total land (TL) area by county (AL percent ) as shown in Eq. 8.

AL percent [%] = AL act [m 2 ] / TL [m 2 ]

(8)

To determine the agricultural land available for food production within each UAC, the AL percent for the county containing the UAC is multiplied by the total land area in each UAC. The required area needed for food production for each UAC is the population of the UAC multiplied by the 202,350 square meters per person for the typical diet. The actual agricultural land area (AL act )in each UAC is compared to the area required (AL req )to produce food for consumption based on the population and a typical diet. An area equal to or more than the land area required to produce the requsite calories per person has a positive net balance in food (NB f ), as shown in equation (9).

NB f = AL act - AL req

(9)

5. Results

The NZ energy analysis indicates that given current solar photovoltaic performance and the assumptions regarding residential footprints, about 61% of the population in urban areas in the United

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

States have the potential to be NZ in terms of residential energy use. NZ energy is attainable in US regions with greater insolation and/or lower heating and cooling demand. The northeast, upper midwest and northwest regions would have less potential for residential NZ. Figure 4 shows the UACs with either a positive or negative energy balance.

the UACs with either a positive or negative energy balance. Figure 4. Energy balance for the

Figure 4. Energy balance for the UACs across the contiguous United States.

1,952 UACs representing about 35% of the population could meet NZ water through rainwater harvesting based on baseline water consumption and per capita domestic water withdrawals. These regions are primarily in the south- and northeast. In general, west of the Mississippi River precipitation is not sufficient to meet demand given the water collection area and collection efficiency assumptions made. Although some urban areas in the northeast and northwest do have considerable precipitation, the population density is too high to allow sufficient collection area to meet NZ water. Figure 5 illustrates the geographical distribution of the baseline domestic water mass balance.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March Figure 5. Water balance for the UACs across the contiguous

Figure 5. Water balance for the UACs across the contiguous United States.

In terms of agricultural production systems, the analysis shows that none of the urban areas can meet NZ food given the typical American diet, primarily due to the land area required for cattle. NB f is calculated based on Eq. 9 and mapped as shown in Fig. 6.

is calculated based on Eq. 9 and mapped as shown in Fig. 6. Figure 6. Food

Figure 6. Food production balance for the UACs across the contiguous United States.

5.1 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analyses were performed that examined the potential impact of energy and water efficiency and changing diet on the potential for NZ. In terms of the energy balance, household energy consumption was reduced by 10% and by 15%. These energy reduction estimates are in line with the energy efficiency measures in the US Green Building Council’s LEED green building rating system

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

(U.S. Green Building Council, 2008). If residential buildings were to become more efficient, and household energy consumption were to reduce by 10 or 15%, 71 and 78% of the population in UACs would have the ability to have a positive energy balance. DeOreo and Mayer (2012) evaluated the decreasing trend in residential water use in the USA and showed the impact of standards and retrofit studies in daily indoor water consumption. These values were used to define the alternative scenarios for the sensitivity analysis. The alternative scenarios assume a 30% and 40% reduction in consumption from baseline values based on two high efficiency alternatives defined in (DeOreo and Mayer 2012). Forty-five percent of the UAC population could meet NZ with a 30% reduction in consumption and 51% with a 45% reduction. To reduce the required area per person for food production, animal products are substituted by non- meat foods. The vegetarian diet has no meat, and the vegan diet has no animal products or by-products. The land area required is drastically reduced from the baseline. Fifty-five percent and 70% of the UAC population could meet NZ food with vegetarian and vegan diets respectively. Table 3 and Fig. 7 summarize the results. Figure 7 shows the UACs where none, one, or two systems could meet NZ constraints. Table 4 shows the percentage of UACs capable of meeting NZ on energy, water, and food systems individually and in combination for the baseline and alternative scenarios.

in combination for the baseline and alternative scenarios. Figure 7. Energy, water and food production balance

Figure 7. Energy, water and food production balance under baseline conditions for the UACs across the contiguous United States. Table 3. Percent of population achieving energy, water, and food net zero criteria individually and in combination in the baseline, improved efficiency, and high efficiency scenarios

Scenario

Energy

Water

Food

Energy and

Energy, Water,

Water

and Food

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

(%)

Baseline

61

35

0

19

0

Improved efficiency

71

45

55

32

22

High efficiency

78

51

70

42

36

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

6. Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusions

The NZ paradigm most clearly applied to solar energy use in this analysis. Although the renewable technology used was limited to photovoltaics, the use of residential building area as a resource collection surface is aligned with much of the residential scale renewable energy generation in the United States today. Site scale RE generation is often seen as preferable to utility scale RE generation. From the perspective of the building, it does not matter where the RE is generated. Many neighborhoods and homes are constructed as low energy consumption, but may be improperly sited for on-site RE systems, while other neighborhoods are sited for on-site RE systems, but have a higher energy use per unit area. Furthermore, the scale at which grid-tied RE systems are installed relative to the capacity of the utility grid are limiting factors. Intermittent production throughout the year is also a limiting factor for RE systems without storage capabilities. A more constant source of renewable energy generation, such as biomass or hydroelectric may be needed for a more balanced grid. Using NZ as a paradigm for residential potable water consumption was not as clear cut. Although the available collection area could be calculated, impacts on the environment from changes in water flows due to the rainwater collection are not fully considered. At an urban area level, the amount of collection space available promises to satisfy indoor domestic water use in some areas. The results show the limits of rainwater harvesting to supply domestic water use. However, contrary to current practice, surface and groundwater sources are not considered in this analysis, which currently does allow many regions to meet demands. Lastly, considering the non-stationarity nature of the climate system (Milly et al 2008), a solution that relies exclusively in rainfall for its supply is vulnerable. It is no longer certain that the climate system will fluctuate within a near-term historical range, as evidenced by the alteration in means and extremes of precipitation and temperature. Therefore, a water supply system needs to consider sources of water supply that could provide water during periods of drought. Extending the NZ paradigm to production systems was found to be the least useful. First, NZ does not match the global scale of many current production systems that we rely upon for food and consumer goods. The scale of production systems generally requires large markets rather than smaller and therefore local production is generally not viable. That said, local food production is possible given changes in diet and perhaps extending the NZ boundary to regions near urban clusters. The study is preliminary and has several limitations that could be addressed in future work. For example, as a first level analysis and typical housing and diet assumptions were made and used consistently across all regions. An analysis that is able to identify and better respond to differences by UAC would lead to a more nuanced analysis. Particularly, the production side did not carefully examine the variability and suitability for crop production in agricultural land across regions. Second, the scale of the analysis was the UAC, which served as the boundary of the NZ systems. However, in some cases, it may be beneficial if the NZ analysis boundary for water, food, and even energy generation is extended. NZ at the residential scale does not consider the potential for improved performance and greater efficiency at larger scales. For example, a watershed outside of the UAC boundary may be preferable to rainwater collection for a sustainable water supply, as can be seen in the case of Chicago, IL in Fig. 5. Photovoltaics may be more productive when optimally installed in a larger array, water and waste water treatment systems may be more efficient at larger scales and production systems generally will not be feasible as currently configured if reduced to smaller scales. Lastly, temporal issues were not addressed, which could affect all three systems examined. Renewable energy production and rainfall are intermittent, as is food production in general. Storage was not considered in the analysis.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

The broad application of the NZ paradigm could become a factor in design, construction, and urban development as it acknowledges the system’s carrying capacity. However, the applicability, value, and limits of the net zero model to a given system in the built environment will depend upon the unique resource availability and constraints of a site or region as well as the system boundary definition, its spatial scale, and the specific impact reduction goals.

7. References

[1] Brown L. (1982). Building a Sustainable Society. W W Norton, New York. [2]Costanza R., & Daly H. (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology, 1, 37-45. [3]Daly, C., M. Halbleib, J.I. Smith, W.P. Gibson, M.K. Doggett, G.H. Taylor, J. Curtis, & Pasteris, P.P. (2008). Physiographically-sensitive mapping of temperature and precipitation across the conterminous United States. International Journal of Climatology, 29 (15), 2031-2064. Retrieved from http:// www.prism.oregonstate.edu [4]DeOreo, W. B. and Mayer, P. W. (2012). Insights into declining single-family residential water demands. Journal American Water Works Association. 104 (6), E383-E394. [5]Ehrlich P. R. (1968). The Population Bomb. Ballantine Books, New York. [6]Healy, R.W., Winter, T.C., LaBaugh, J.W., & Franke, O.L., (2007). Water budgets: Foundations for effective water-resources and environmental management. (Circular 1308), U.S. Geological Survey. [7]Hoekstra, A. Y., Mekonnen, M. M., Chapagain, A. K., Mathews, R. E., & Richter, B. D.,. (2012). Global monthly water scarcity: Blue water footprints versus blue water availability. PLoS ONE, 7 (2), e32688. Retrieved from

[8]Malthus T.R. (1798). An Essay on the Principle of Population. [9]Mayer, P.W., DeOreo, W.B., et al. (1999). Residential end uses of water. AWWA Research Foundation. 310 p. [10]Milly, P.C.D., Betancourt, J., Falkenmark, M., Hirsch, R.M., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lettermaier, D.P. & Stouffer, R.J. (2008). Stationarity Is Dead: Whither Water Management? Science. 319 (5863), 573-574. Retrieved from

doi:10.1126/science.1151915

[11]Poff, N. L., Richter, B. D., Arthington, A. H., Bunn, S. E., Naiman, R. J., Kendy, E., Warner, A. (2010). The ecological limits of hydrologic alteration (ELOHA): A new framework for developing regional environmental flow standards. Freshwater Biology, 55 (1), 147-170. Retrieved from doi:10.1111/ j.1365-2427.2009.02204.x [12]Rees W. E. (1992). Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying capacity: what urban economics leaves out. Environment and Urbanisation, 4 (2), 121130. [13]Rees W., Wackernagel, M. (1996). Urban Ecological Footprints: Why cities cannot be sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 223-248. [14]Richter, B. D., Warner, A. T., Meyer, J. L., & Lutz, K. (2006). A collaborative and adaptive process for developing environmental flow recommendations. River Research and Applications, 22 (3), 297-318. Retrieved from doi:10.1002/rra.892 [15]Richter, B.D., Davis, M.M., Apse, C., & Konrad, C. (2012). A presumptive standard for environmental flow protection. River Research and Applications. 28, 13121321. [16]Sanford, W. E., and Selnick, D.L., (2013). Estimation of evapotranspiration across the conterminous United States using a regression with climate and land-cover data: Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 49 (1), 217-230. [17]Torcellini, P.; Pless, S. (2010). Zero Energy Buildings: A Classification System Based on Renewable Energy Supply Options. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 21 pp. [18]U.S.Census (2010a). Gazetteer Files. Retrieved January 26, 2014: http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-

[19]U.S.Census (2010b). TIGER/Line Shapefiles. Retrieved January 26, 2014: http://www.census.gov/geo/maps-

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

[20]Wackernagel M., Rees W. (1994). Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth. New Society Publishers, New York. [21]U.S. Census (2013). Median and Average Square Feet of Floor Area in New Single-Family Houses Completed by Location. Retrieved December 22, 2013: http://www.census.gov/const/C25Ann/sftotalmedavgsqft.pdf [22]U.S. Department of Agriculture (2010). Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Executive Summary. Retrieved January 6, 2014: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/PolicyDoc/ExecSumm.pdf [23]U. S. Department of Agriculture (2007) Census of Agriculture. Retrieved January 6, 2014:

[24]U.S. Geological Survey (2005). Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005 (Circular 1344). Retrieved December 2013: http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/data/2005/index.html [25]U.S. Green Building Council. (2008). Homes reference guide. Washington, D.C.: The Council.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

An optimization model for scaling distributed DPR systems

Tianjiao Guo 1 , James Englehardt 2

1 Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Miami, McArthur Engineering Building, Rm. 325, 1251 Memorial Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33146, United States Email: t.guo1@umiami.edu 2 Department of Civil, Architectural, and Environmental Engineering, University of Miami, McArthur Engineering Building, Rm. 325, 1251 Memorial Drive, Coral Gables, FL 33146, United States Email: jenglehardt@miami.edu

Abstract

Direct potable water reuse (DPR) has recently been recommended by the National Research Council for consideration, to address increasing water demands and water shortages in remote areas. DPR systems, which include the original water distribution and wastewater treatment systems, may represent a potential low-energy replacement for aging water/wastewater infrastructures. However, centralized DPR system would require high energy of distribution of treated water, raising questions as to optimal system scale. In this study, results of the study of the optimal scale of DPR systems, considering population density and topography of the study area are presented. Fractal landscapes were simulated using a modified preferential growth algorithm. Treatment plants were allocated by agglomerative hierarchical clustering, networked to homes by minimum spanning tree. Annual capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs were discounted to constant 2012 US dollars, with multiple samplings averaging across simulated population distributions. The cost of energy for residential hot water was also included as a cost of providing water, to evaluate the overall cost of distributed systems considering retention of wastewater thermal energy. Based on these results, distributed DPR systems show great advantage in rural areas due to high piping and conveyance cost. While in urban and suburban areas, system capital costs dominate other costs and show an economy of scale. However, this economy is not marked unless fewer than 10 homes are served per treatment plant, on average, suggesting consideration of distributed systems even in urban cases. Also, as expected, the unit cost of DPR water is highest in rural areas. The effects of population distribution patterns and landscapes whose maximum elevation difference is less than 150m on unit water price were not strongly indicated by the current model.

Keywords: Direct potable water reuse, hierarchical clustering, water, minimum spanning tree

1. Introduction

US water/wastewater infrastructure is aging and in need of repair or replacement now, offering an opportunity for careful reassessment of the entire municipal water management system. A recent report by the National Research Council [1] also found that “The use of reclaimed water to augment potable water supplies has significant potential for helping to meet future needs, ….” and then recommended potable reuse with or without environmental buffer to be considered as a water management alternative.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

For thoughts in detail system design, although most centralized treatment processes would show an economy of scale in terms of capital and O&M cost [2], this effect is offset by the costs of wastewater collection and water distribution, which favor decentralization. Thus distributed DPR systems may further

be considered, given that centralized DPR systems would require upgradient distribution of treated water, whereas distributed systems would offer reductions in energy spent on conveyance and distribution. In this way, a study in optimization of the scale of such systems, whether centralized or distributed, with minimized unit water cost is needed. While previous studies of the scaling of distributed DPR systems were not found, researchers have optimized the design and scaling of conventional water and wastewater systems [3][4][5], also including water distribution networks [6][7], sewer networks [8], and wastewater collection and treatment plants [9][10]. However, these studies do not consider costs of both water distribution and wastewater collection, together with treatment costs, in an integrated approach as would be needed to optimize the design and scaling of distributed DPR systems. Also, these models are mostly suited to assessing site- specific costs, than to the development of more generalized principles for minimizing life-cycle cost including both capital and O&M, for systems without restriction on network configuration.

In general, the study is able to demonstrate a method to optimize the scaling of DPR systems without

initial constraints on system layout. A model is presented which simulates a general topographic and population distribution map for an area, and then solves the optimization by numerical method with graph algorithms as hierarchical clustering and minimum spanning tree. Results are expressed as life-cycle unit water cost including each component’s capital and O&M cost, as a function of population density and topography. Also, they can be initial general conclusions as a basis for the scaling of distributed DPR

systems.

2. Model description

A description of the model, which can be divided into steps of landscape generation, population

distribution, clustering of buildings in terms of DPR water service, pipeline network definition, and computation of costs, is presented below. Besides, discussions of proposed landscapes and multiple sampling methods are also offered.

2.1. Landscape building Each landscape is defined by a square matrix [Z] with elements equal to the elevations at each corresponding point in space. The dimension of the matrix is in the form of 2 n +1, with a total pixels N=4 n +2·2 n +1, where n is the level number based on the size and resolution of study area. In the model, generation of the matrix is completed by the midpoint displacement algorithm [11], in which each iteration can be expressed by updating the matrix’s elements in positions (1,d), (d,1), (d,d), (d,N) and (N,d) where d=(1+N)/2 with the mean value of sum of elements on the edges plus certain random noise:

a

_

c

_

_

_

b

_

d

 

a

a

c

a

a

b

b

2

c

d

b

b

d

2

c

c

4

d

2

2

d

 

C

2

n

randn

(1)

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

in which C is a constant, n is the level number mentioned above, and randn is a random variable. The process is repeated until the full matrix is obtained. And all elevation information is then loaded at the beginning of the model as a fixed variable.

2.2. Population generation

A modified preferential growth algorithm [12] applied to a two-dimensional grid is implemented in the model to generate simulated population distributions of selected population densities on the landscape matrix just described. Thus, the algorithm is roughly similar to the Game of Life [13], with no death mechanism. A one-story household of average 2.6 people [14], recorded as story degree of S i =1, is set as the basic unit. Starts with n 0 buildings randomly placed on the N-pixel study area, more one-story buildings are placed on the landscape at each time increment with a combined probability of preferential growth and baseline increase, until desired population density is reached. The preferential part is determined by its degree k i (0≤k i ≤8) which equals the number of buildings on the surrounding 3x3 pixels (omitting itself in the center). At this point, k i only takes into account empty pixel. And the probability of placing a new building, P 1 (i), is expressed as the degree at this pixel, k i + δ (δ is a constant applied in all empty pixels), divided by the total degree on the study area:

P

1

( )

i

k

i

k

i

(

N

n

t

)

(2)

When the population density reaches a threshold of 965 people/km 2 (2500 people/mile 2 ), a second population generation process is proceeded with assumption that multi-story buildings can be constructed, in which additional floors was indicated by a change from degree S i to degree S i +1. In this process the preferential probability degree k i is extended, taking into account all pixels of the entire simulated study area. The probability of a change from S i to S i +1, or of the addition of a new vertex at pixel i, P 2 (i), is:

P

2

(

i

)

k

i

S

i

k

'

S

i i

(

N

n

t

)

for pixels with a building, and:

P

2

(

i

)

k

i

k

'

S

i i

(

N

n

t

)

for pixels without a building.

(3)

(4)

2.3. Service clustering process

Following simulation of the population distribution, an agglomerative hierarchical clustering method is initiated to determine the desired number of treatment plants within the simulated study area or, equivalently, the number of clusters of buildings each of which is served by one treatment plant. It starts with the assumption of n t clusters, which indicates each building is served by one treatment plant. At each time increment two clusters, selected based on an optimal objective function, are merged to form one such that buildings in these two clusters come to share one treatment plant. The treatment plants number, i.e. the total cluster number, decreases to n t - m after m steps. The process is continued until all clusters are merged to form a single large cluster. Accordingly, the number of clusters represents the extent of decentralization. Once the clustering process is finished, the treatment plant is positioned near the lowest house in the cluster, to maximize the use of gravity for the return of wastewater to the plant. In this way, a series of arrangements of treatment plants from centralization to decentralization can be completed for each certain distribution of population in the terrain.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

2.4. Pipe networks within clusters

For each simulated cluster of buildings that shares one DPR treatment plant, a minimum spanning tree (MST) is used to design the optimal water distribution/sewer collection network. To represent an actual water/wastewater conveyance network, buildings are represented as vertices and the weights of edges are set as the Euclidean distance between buildings, the same metric of hierarchical clustering method that was described earlier. Since an MST has the characteristic of connecting all vertices while minimizing the total weight of the edges, the simulated MST network will have the least total length of pipe and least total distance of water conveyance. Further, it has been proven that the MST is unique if all edges in the graph have distinct weights. Thus the algorithm for finding the MST will not affect the result in most cases. In the process, the total length of edges representing pipelines is also obtained. Once the network is constructed, an estimation of the water flow rate in pipe i, Q i , is also obtained by calculating

the total story degree of buildings whose water supply depends on the pipe i in cluster j,

assuming each one story building has an occupancy of 2.6 people and each person has a water demand of

0.249 m 3 (66 gallons) per day [15],

å å

j

S

j

( i )

,

Q

i

0.65*

j

S

j

( )

i

(m

3 /d).

2.5. Cost estimation

For purposes of the present model, a treatment train comprising membrane bioreactor (MBR), electrocoagulation, peroxone oxidation (mineralization), and granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption is assumed for all treatment plants, based on previously work. The treatment train, which is designed for residential urban net-zero water treatment system, can produce potable water with limited mineral content at ambient temperature [17]. Cost of treatment train is calculated using cost functions concluded previously [2]. When accounting for system capacities, peak factor should also be considered in design of DPR plants. Due to lack of equalization basin and storage tank[17], a 1.4 peak factor (ratio of maximum day flow to average daily flow) biological tank [15][17][18] and 1.39 times of size of flow capacity peroxone tank [17] would be required in the current design of DPR systems. Additionally, according to Metcalf & Eddy [15], a 37854 m 3 /d (10 MGD) wastewater treatment plant would have to treat 0.15 m 3 /d/capita (40 gpcd, gallon per capita day) infiltration in dry weather besides 0.23 m 3 /d/capita (60 gpcd) residential flow of its service area. While a fully decentralized one-building treatment plant would not need to worry this problem. If DPR plants have the same property, a linear relationship of size factor and original treatment capacity can be assumed as: y=1+x/37854*40/60, in which x (m 3 /d) is the treatment capacity, y is the size factor, in order to estimate the additional infiltration treatment capacities. Another important element of capital cost is the cost of pipeline installation and water conveyance. In

the model, a cost function in terms of

length (m), D is the diameter of the pipe (m), K ($) is the fixed cost, was used to calculate capital costs of both water and sewer pipelines based on previous literature [16] and current estimate for the US [19] including all necessary appurtenances, fire hydrants and service connections. As to pipeline O&M costs, the cost to move the water through the pipes from treatment plant to end-user, and back to the treatment plant are all estimated with the elevation difference across the pipeline assessed for each pipe in all water/sewer networks. Gravitational potential energy, kinetic energy, and energy loss due to friction in the pipe are calculated to estimate pumping energy needed to move the water. The selection of pipe diameter, D (m), is based on flow rate in the pipe (m 3 /s), using empirical data for water pipes and for sewer pipes separately [20][21]. Further it is assumed that water pipes smaller than 2.54cm (1 inch), and

C / L K ·D

in which C is the total capital cost ($), L is the

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

sewer pipes of less than 3.81cm (1.5 inch), are not allowed by local code. After energy in each pipe is calculated, a 30% pump efficiency is assumed, to calculate total energy to move the water in the system. In addition, a water pressure enough to maintain a gauge pressure of 200,000 pascal (29 psi) for the highest building was assumed in each water distribution system to ensure water supply. Electricity cost was estimated based on the US national average rate of $0.12/kWh [22]. Further, the annual cost of maintaining pipes was assumed at 4% of capital cost. And the capital cost of pump station in the model is estimated as 20% of pipeline installation fee [23]. Because on-site DPR systems offer the potential to retain thermal energy (from water heaters) in the water, the cost of residential water heating was considered in this study as a cost of providing water. This cost was estimated based on the average residential hot water energy cost of $228 per household [26] and average US per capita water use stated earlier. Based on Fourier’s Law in cylindrical coordinates for 1-D conduction in the radical direction, heat loss over unit distance q r (W/m) can be expressed as

q

r

2

k T

(

i

T

o

)

ln(

r

o

r

i

)

, in which k is thermal conductivity of the material (W/(m*K)), T i , T o are

temperatures inside and outside the pipe (K), and r o , r i are outside and inside pipe radii (m), an estimate of ~121.9 m (400 feet) is the furthest that thermal energy in the water can be retained in copper 2.54 cm (1 inch) diameter pipes with insulation having methylene di-isocyanate (MDI)-based rigid polyurethane injected into the annulus between the service pipe and outer casing by a one shot factory process and a thermal conductivity of 0.023W/(m*K). Therefore, an estimate of hot water heat loss is made based on the average pipe length from buildings to treatment plant in the DPR systems, assuming no heat retention for pipe lengths > 121.9 m, 80% heat retention for on-site systems, and linear variation in between, as an additional component of the total cost of providing water. Finally, costs were computed in constant 2012 US dollars in terms of GDP deflator [24], assuming O&M costs are to be drawn from annual revenue funds, that is at an assumed 0% real interest rate (available interest minus inflation). Capital costs were assumed funded by municipal bonds carrying interest at 5%, based on US data on 20-year AA rated municipal bond rates [25].

2.6. Landscape scenarios With the midpoint displacement method to be a general way to build a landscape, the most important representative topographical factor of a landscape that may affect the cost of pipeline installation and water conveyance energy, maximum elevation differences, is considered in the process of proposing landscape scenarios. Letting the matrix [Z] representing the landscape of a study area, the maximum elevation difference, ΔZ, can be defined as:

ΔZ=Max(Z)-Min(Z)

in which Z is the elevation that varies spatially. To simulate flat, hilly, and mountainous topographies, elevation data found in Google Earth® software were used to obtain typical values of ΔZ in Pinecrest, FL, Berwyn, PA, and Telluride, CO, as example landscapes representing flat, hilly, and mountainous terrain, respectively (see Table 1 below). In these three landscapes, the unit length of each pixel is set to be 25 m, which makes the 1025 x 1025 resolution study area a total area of 25600 x 25600 m 2 . Considering power saving and averaging urban, the landscapes in urban and suburban cases were decreased to 1/4 of the original, resulting a 513 x 513 study area with an area of 12800 x 12800 m 2 . In general, the three landscapes have increasing ΔZ values as it goes from flat to mountainous.

(5)

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Table 1. Proposed landscape scenarios

Population Landscapes
Population
Landscapes

Rural

Urban and suburban

1. Flat

1. Flat
1. Flat

ΔZ=6.9m

ΔZ=4.4m

2.Hilly

2.Hilly
2.Hilly

ΔZ=153.0m

ΔZ=130.4m

3.Mountainous

3.Mountainous
3.Mountainous

ΔZ=1665.8m

ΔZ=1253.8m

2.7. Multiple population sampling In the model, three population densities in the cases of rural, suburban and urban areas are studied. Population density of rural area is selected as that of farmlands between Lancaster and Downingtown in Pennsylvania, ~96 /km 2 (250 /mile 2 ), with suburban as that of Berwyn, PA, ~772 /km 2 (2000 /mile 2 ), and urban as that of City of Philadelphia, ~3860 /km 2 (10000 /mile 2 ), accords to US Census Bureau [27]. In addition, multiple population sampling was used to simulate different distributions across the simulated study area, and ensure a general result for each assumed population density. Costs were assessed and recorded for each population distribution, and compared to the mean of previous results. And initial results shows that the impact of randomness of population distribution under certain population density is limited. Water cost data were converging as Figure 1 shows the data at 96 /km 2 (250 /mile 2 ) as one of the most variable situation. Due to power limitation, each scenario in the model was run for 5 times and results are shown in the mean of these 5 runs. Variations of total water price should be within ±$0.03/1000 gallon. In general, a flow diagram of algorithms in the model sees Figure 2. Note that the assumed landscape was held fixed during the processes, in order to learn the effects of other elements.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Averaged projected water price 147.2 147 146.8 146.6 146.4 146.2 146 $/1000 gallons
Averaged projected water price
147.2
147
146.8
146.6
146.4
146.2
146
$/1000 gallons

0

10

20

Sampling 30 Times

40

50

60

Figure 1. Projected centralized water price at 96 people/km 2 (250 people/mile 2 ) in Land 1

at 96 people/km 2 (250 people/mile 2 ) in Land 1 Figure 2. A flow diagram

Figure 2. A flow diagram of general algorithms used in the model.

3. Results

Random initial population distributions sampled from uniform distributions on 3 landscape scenarios were simulated, and the model was run to assess the cost of providing water, including domestic hot water energy, assuming 96 /km 2 (250 /mile 2 ), 772 /km 2 (2000 /mile 2 ) and 3860 /km 2 (10000 /mile 2 ) as shown in figures in Table 2 on semi-log axes. Total costs are shown in the figures, as well as costs for O&M and capital, and each component therein for DPR systems including pipelines and treatment processes. As to optimal scale of DPR systems, result shows that the current model indicates water price is lowest for distributed systems serving ~1.25 homes per treatment plant on average for 96 /km 2 , ~6635.7

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

for 772 /km 2 and ~9124.1 for 3860 /km 2 . Shown in Table 2, piping and conveyance cost dominates the water price in all 3 rural cases, indicates that the on-site DPR system might be needed in remote or arid area. As to 6 urban and suburban cases, they are relative more expensive due to the lack of economy of scale in terms of capital cost, while the price of distributed DPR system is still acceptable for systems severing >100 homes, e.g. a high residential building. On the other hand, big centralized plants were indicated to be slightly higher in cost, especially in 3 urban cases, which mainly because of oversized MBR and peroxone tanks for large population’s peak flow and infiltration. And in suburban cases, the cost is relatively constant up to one plant per 1000 homes and increases only slowly from there to a value of one plant per 100 homes.

Table 2. Decentralization water prices at various landscapes and population densities

Landscape Population
Landscape
Population

1.Flat

2.Hilly

3.Mountainous

96 /km 2

96 /km 2
96 /km 2
96 /km 2

772

772
772
772

/km 2

3860

3860
3860
3860

/km 2

In terms of influence of topographical variation, landscapes with a larger ΔZ value tended to have a higher projected water price in centralized systems in general, attributed mainly to higher water conveyance and pipeline O&M costs. The landscape may increase the water price in centralized system for up to ~$7/1000 gallon while it does not have a great impact on the on-site systems. For example, in Figure 3 the results calculated at 772 /km 2 (2000 /mile 2 ) are shown.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March Figure 3. Projected cost of water at 772 people/km 2

Figure 3. Projected cost of water at 772 people/km 2 on different landscapes.

As to population density, the influence may be huge as results shown in Table 2. A significant decreasing water cost is indicated as the population density increases. Also, the difference becomes neglectable when system scales are less than one per 100 homes. Results for Land 1 and different population densities are shown in Figure 4 as an example.

population densities are shown in Figure 4 as an example. Figure 4. Projected cost of water

Figure 4. Projected cost of water on Land 1 with different population densities.

In some cases plant may be constructed using available funds, so that a zero interest rate for capital might apply. In that case, the capital cost of both pipelines and treatment plants would be 37.6% less

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

expensive, while O&M costs would remain the same. The marked effect of such differences in interest is shown in Figure 5, for 772 /km 2 and Land 2.

interest is shown in Figure 5, for 772 /km 2 and Land 2. Figure 5. Cost

Figure 5. Cost of water for 1930 people/km 2 and Land 2, assuming 0% interest and 5% interest.

4. Conclusion

The cost of providing water comprises (a) the cost of treatment including capital and O&M, and (b) the cost of water conveyance including capital and O&M costs for the pipeline network, energy costs for conveyance of water/wastewater and water heating. While most treatment unit processes have an associated economy of scale, costs for the network tend to favor decentralization. In the case of DPR, two factors motivate consideration of distributed systems. First, treated water conveyance back to the home would in general be upgradient. Second, hot water would be retained if losses in insulated pipes could be minimized. Based on results presented here, the on-site DPR systems may be promoted in sparsely populated areas in terms of lowest life-cycle water cost. While feasibility of fully decentralized treatment facilities may be limited due to high system capital cost, partially distributed systems may be applicable for systems serving >10 homes, especially when improved water reuse technology and insulation materials become available. Thus, as expected, this study confirms population density as the first factor to consider. Another important factor to consider was shown to be the municipal bond rate. However, distributed systems may also represent a viable approach in general to introducing DPR to existing water/wastewater service areas gradually, when they are considered as expansions or replacements for aging water/waste water systems. Also, results of the current model did not indicate a major influence of topography on unit water cost, especially for landscapes whose maximum elevation difference is less than 150m, though factors such as difficulties encountered in excavation of pipelines in mountainous regions could not be considered in detail.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

5. Reference

[1] National Research Council. Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation's Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2011). [2] T. Guo, J. Englehardt, and T. Wu. Review of Cost versus scale: water and wastewater treatment and reuse processes. Water Sci. Technol. 69(2):223-234 (2014). [3] E.U. Nzewi, D.D. Gray, and M.H. Houck. Optimal design program for gravity sanitary sewers. Civil Eng. Syst. 2(3):132-141 (1985). [4] D. Joksimovic, D.A. Savic, G.A. Walters, D. Bixio, K. Katsoufidou, and S.G. Yiantsios. Development and validation of system design principles for water reuse systems. Desalination 218(1-3):142-153 (2008). [5] S. Lim, D. Park, and J.M. Park. Environmental and economic feasibility study of a total wastewater treatment network system. J. Environ. Manage. 88(3):564-575 (2008). [6] A.R. Simpson, G.C. Dandy, and L.J. Murphy. Genetic algorithms compared to other techniques for pipe optimization. J. Water Res. Pl.-ASCE 120(4):423-443 (1994). [7] I. Gupta, A. Gupta, and P. Khanna. Genetic algorithm for optimization of water distribution systems. Environ. Modell. Softw. 14(5):437-446 (1999). [8] J.P. Leitao, J.S. Matos, A.B. Goncalves, and J.L. Matos. Contribution of geographic information systems and location models to planning of wastewater systems. Water Sci. Technol. 52(3):1-8 (2005). [9] B. Beraud, J.P. Steyer, C. Lemoine, E. Latrille, G. Manic, and C. Printemps-Vacquier. Towards a global multi objective optimization of wastewater treatment plant based on modeling and genetic algorithms. Water Sci. Technol. 56(9):109-116 (2007). [10] A.K. Gupta, and R.K. Shrivastava. Optimal design of water treatment plant under uncertainty using genetic algorithm. Environ. Prog. 27(1):91-7 (2008). [11] D.J. Higham, and N.J. Higham. MATLAB Guide, 2 nd edition. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia , PA (2005). [12] D. Pennock, G. Flake, S. Lawrence, E. Glover, and C. Giles. Winners don't take all: Characterizing the competition for links on the web. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99(8): 5207-5211 (2002). [13] M. Garden. Mathematical games - The fantastic combinations of John Conway's new solitaire game "life". Sci. Am. 223:120123 (1970). [14] D. Lofquist, T. Lugaila, M. Connel, and S. Feliz. Households and families: 2010 census briefs. US Census Bureau, Washington, DC (2012). [15] Metcalf & Eddy Inc. Wastewater engineering: treatment and reuse, 4th edition. McGraw-Hill, Dubuque, IA

(2003).

[16] D. Tyteca. Cost functions for wastewater conveyance systems. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 48:2120-2130

(1976).

[17] J. Englehardt, T. Wu, and G. Tchobanoglous. Urban net-zero water treatment and mineralization: system modeling and design. Water Res. 47(13):4680-4691 (2013). [18] US EPA. 2002. Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems Manual. Office of water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC (2002). Reprot No. EPA/625/R-00/008. [19] E. Vega. Personal Communication. Miami-Dade County Water and Sewer Department, Miami, FL (2013). [20] FlexPVC Company. Water flow chart #1. (2013). http://flexpvc.com/WaterFlowBasedOnPipeSize.shtml (Accessed 27 Jan 2014) [21] Engineering toolbox. Waste water and flow capacity. (2013). http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/sewage- piping-systems-d_568.html (Accessed 27 Jan 2014) [22] US Energy Information Administration. Table 5.6.A: Average Retail Price of Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State, January 2013 and 2012. Washinton, DC (2013). http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data.cfm#sales (Accessed 31 Mar 2013) [23] Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department. 2012 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department, Miami, FL (2013). February 2013.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

[24] US Bureau of Economic Analysis. NIPA Table 1.1.9: Implicit Price Deflators for Gross Domestic Product. Washinton, DC (2013). http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=9&step=1 (Accessed 13 Jan 2013) [25] Bondsonline. Municpical Bonds. (2013). http://www.bondsonline.com/Todays_Market/Composite_Bond_Yields_table.php (Accessed 27 Jan 2014) [26] US Department of Energy. Baseline results and methodology of the consumer sub-group analysis for residential water heater efficiency standards. Washington, DC (1998). [27] US Census Bureau. 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Population and Housing Unit Counts PHC-3-A, Selected Appendixes. Washington, DC (2003).

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Strategies for Demand Reduction for Net Zero Water Discharge A Comparative Analysis of Jamia Millia Islamia University

Ar.Kulsum Fatima 1 & Gauhar Mahmood 2

1 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Architecture & Ekistics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi 110025, India, E-mail:kulsumreema@gmail.com 2 Professor, Department Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi, E-Mail:aquaexplorers@yahoo.com

Abstract

Jamia Millia Islamia is a central university situated in Jamia nagar south Delhi. The Jamia occupies an area of 209 acres of land in which 30% area has got 100feet deep soil. However 70% area is rocky. The major source of water supply for the university is Ground water only 7-10% of the total requirement is met from Municipal Water Supply. The idea is to study the variations in Water Availability & Water Demand over a period of time. Modeling for water demand as per land use pattern 2003 Past & 2013 - Present Scenario to understand the Water Deficiency arising due to the growth of University via land Acquisition & growth in population. And a comparative analysis is generated for University increased annual demand of 1029268.6 kilolitres from 821415.71 kilolitres. The study was carried out for water requirement of Jamia Millia Islamia using Indian Standard code of Practices IS 1172. And a quantitative estimation is assessed on the basis of following components:

Students Requirement

Staff

Residential Quarters

Hostels

Horticulture

In view of the Water Deficiency, Depleting Ground Water level & Increasing Water Demand effecting Stage of Ground Water Development within the University Campus. Total water availability study was carried out using the prescribed formula by central ground water board & ground water estimation committee along with Nabard’s Norms and local norms. Further Water Conservation & Management Strategies including recycling of water, usage of Dry plants, utilizing Rejected RO Water, Drip Irrigation, AC Makeup Water, etc are proposed to enhance water management while reducing Fresh Water Demand. And to get Stage of ground water development under prescribed regulation of Nabard’s norm. By virtue of which the decline of water level has to be prevented & the sustainable development needs to be achieved.

Keywords: Ground Water, Water deficiency, Water discharge, Water recycling

1.

Introduction

Jamia Millia Islamia is a central university situated in Jamia nagar south Delhi. The Jamia occupies an area of 209 Acres of land in which 30% area has got 100feet deep soil. However 70% area is rocky. The major source of water supply for the university is Ground water, the measure hydraulic structures are shallow & deep tube wells. Only 7-10% of the total requirement is available from Delhi jal board.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Jamia Millia Islamia being a central university is growing day by day and the student population in Jamia increases exponentially. From 13,466 of Total Population in 2003 to 37,422 by 2013 which is almost an increment of 36% over a period of ten years. Similarly the Built up area in 2003 was 80,225.6424 meter square whereas in 2013 it has increased upto 1, 18,469.2885 meter square. In the early days of university the water requirement was very less as compared to ground water potential but with the year 2000 the water scarcity started due to faster declining of water level. The situation became serious in year 2003 owing to the drastic change in landuse pattern in which a number of buildings have been constructed along with the increment in hard areas including roads & paved areas. Further in 2013 the situation become even worse due to the high rate of development with increased constructed area as well as paved areas. Along with the introduction of the concept of centrally Aiconditioned Buildings, Reverse Osmosis Water Systems, introduction of Glass as Building fabric within the university Campus, etc has been the contemporary factors leading to tremendously high water demand at present. The surrounding area development is another reason because the Jal Board water supply is not available in the surrounding areas of Jamia Millia Islamia. The ground water is the only source in the surrounding areas, this has led to a water management crises in the university and most of the shallow tube-wells got failed. In the year 2003 UGC has allocated a grant of rupees 14lakh for the development of rain water harvesting system in Jamia Millia Islamia. The study for feasibility & design of rain water harvesting system was carried out in where unlike the central ground water board recommendation. The paved & constructed open areas were also included for rain water harvesting apart from traditional rooftop harvesting. Apart from these the horticulture & lawn areas were provided proper embankment with micro-injection well system in order to capture the rain water for proper recharging of ground water. The water requirement analysis of Jamia Millia Islamia was worked out as per Indian standard code of practice IS-1172 and the ground water potential & rain water harvesting potential were also worked out as per ground water estimation committee formula 1996. As Noticed the stage of ground water development is not in comfortable stage as a result the water table further declined comparatively with a slow rate before the adaptation of rain water harvesting system in 2003. The requirement modelling study was carried out and accordingly the calculations for the requirement model were done as a result the stage of ground water development was achieved under grey stage of the Nabard’s Norm. The above study may be treated as a classic example of ground water management with controlled development of land uses & maybe duplicated in other parts of India. Especially in the institutional areas.

2. Analysis & Discussion

The ground water management study for Jamia Millia Islamia was carried out with a concept of simple hydrologic equation which is inflow (differential output) output = Storage. In this respect the equation indicates that if the inflow factor is greater (>) outflow factor = +ve (positive storage) and the water table will not get the declining trend. However if the outflow is greater than inflow than the storage becomes

34
34

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

ve(negative) and as a result the water level will acquire the declining trend. The inflow factor here was treated as water availability and the outflow factor was treated as requirement. Accordingly the calculations were made which are as follows:

2.1. Hydrological Setup of Study Area Delhi experiences about 622mm of rainfall as an annual average in which the central verge of Delhi including India gate, chanakyapuri, NDMC Zone of Delhi experience about 800mm of rainfall followed by 600mm of rainfall between India gate & nizammuddin areas covering southern & south eastern part of Delhi & North & north eastern part along Yamuna. The lowest rainfall is recorded in the Saket & Vasant Kunj Area which is about 400mm of Rainfall. Further the rainfall characteristics of Delhi is erratic and most of the time above & below average level by virtue of which the replenishment of ground water become further difficult specially with a withdrawal rate of 321% of the replenishment. This clearly necessitates the artificial recharging of Delhi area with a pace of urbanization where most of areas are covered and Natural replenishment is deteriorated.

2.2. Water Demand is calculated using IS-1172 along with analysis of all types of Land Uses as

Projected by the 2003 & 2013 Master Plan of Jamia Millia Islamia. Since the first conception of Mater Plan for the University in 2003 it has a mix-landuse within zones and therefore Actual Zone Based Water Demand Data is not available which limits the applicability of zone wise water demand estimation. Therefore a quantitative estimation for 2003 & 2013 water demands are assessed on the basis of following components:

Students Requirement (Day Boarders)

Staff (Teaching & Non-

Teaching & Visiting Faculties)

Figure 1 Annual rainfall Delhi

Residential Quarters (both Teaching & Non-Teaching)

Hostels (Boys & Girls)

Horticulture Water Demand

Table 1 Jamia University Annual Water Demand

 

Jamia University Annual Water Demand

 

Total Students

Total

Population

 

Population

Total Demand

Total Demand

Demand

2003

2013

2003

2013

Student

Regular students college

15

5599

13675

83985

205125

School

15

2067

18345

31005

275175

School (SFS)

15

2067

 

31005

0

Part-Time (evening Students)

15

875

875

13125

13125

   

10608

32895

159120

493425

   

Annual Demand (kilo litrs. / year)

58078.8

180100.125

Staff

 

Teachers Regular

45

492

 

824

22140

37080

Non-Teaching Staff

45

1098

 

1238

49410

55710

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Visiting Faculty

15

50

100

750

1500

   

1640

2162

72300

94290

   

Annual Demand

26389.5

34415.85

Residences

 

Staff Residences

         

(5person/residence)

135

301

409

203175

276075

   

Annual Demand

74158.875

100767.375

Hostels

 

Boys

135

593

1203

80055

162405

Girls

135

324

753

43740

101655

   

917

1956

123795

264060

   

Annual Demand

45185.175

96381.9

Horticulture

     

6,17,603.36

9,01,015.0752

Total

 

13466

37422

8,21,415.71

13,12,680.32

2.2.1.Student Water Demand is Calculated based on the total student data available for 2003 & 2013. Including the strength of Regular College Students, School Students, Evening School (SFS) Students and Part-Time Evening students for Graduate & Postgraduate courses. While taking per day demand as 15liters per day based on the useable period of time for the student occupancy. For 365 days this demand is calculated to be 58,078.8 kilo liters/year for 2003 & 1,80,100.125 kiloliters/year for 2013 with a 67.75% increment.

2.2.2.Staff Water Demand the water requirement for staff occupancies have been calculated separately for the Regular Staff & Non-teaching staff with a Daily demand of 45 liters/day depending on the hourly occupancies required on Campus. Whereas the calculations for the daily water demand has been taken 15 liters/day for the visiting faculties based on the short duration of their stay within university campus. The total demand for staff turns out to be 26,389.5 kiloliters/year for 2003 & 34,415.85 kilo liters/year for 2013 with a 23.32% increment in demand.

2.2.3.Residences the calculations are made for the total number of accommodation within Jamia campus and the calculation is made including the area under Ajmal bagh, Mujeeb Bagh & Jamia Enclave which is accommodating Jamia’s Non-Teaching Staff, Regular Teaching Staff & People from Jamia Administration respectively. Further a consideration of assuming 5persons/residence is made for calculating the total water demand for these residential occupancies and therefore as per Indian Standard code of Practices IS 1172 a daily demand of 135liters/day is taken for the annual water demand calculation which turns out to be 75,807 kilolitres/year for 2003 & 1,03,006.7 kilolitres/year for 2013 with a 26.40% increment in demand.

2.2.4.Hostel The water demands for Jamia Student Hostels are calculated separately for Girls & Boys Hostels respectively. Again assuming the water demand as the IS code to be 135 liters/day the expected total water annual demand is calculated to be 45,185.175 kilo liters for 2003 & 96,381.9 kiloliters/year for 2013 with a 53.11% increment.

2.2.5.Horticulture the Horticulture demand for the university is calculated assuming the 5liters/meter square/per day requirement for the Green area calculated separately for 2003 & 2013 scenarios. In 2003 landscape was not much developed all it comprised was ground turf grass and only 40% of site area was Green/planted rest were open lands which does allow percolation of rainwater but need not to be watered. And also earlier the plant species use to be xerophytes consuming 40% less water

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

whereas in case of 2013 landscape design & details are more elaborate with added fountains, green parks (for example: rose park) and for the need of beautification hydrophytes have become dominant in number leading to an enhanced demand for horticulture water in 2013 scenario. The demand was calculated to be 6, 17,603.36 & 9, 01015.0752 kiloliters/year respectively with a 31.45% increment in demand.

2.3. Water availability Total water available on site is calculated including Rainwater Potential,

Ground water potential & the quantity of Water supplied by Jal Board on site to Jamia University Campus. And the Quantitative Assessment is as Follows:

2.3.1. Analysis of Landuse master plan for water availability As per Hydro-Physiographic

Zoning the entire Campus is divided under 10 different zones from Zone 1-10 depending on the Hydrological Structure/ Analysis of the prevailing site properties for micro-analysis.

Table 2 Built & Un-built Proportions among zones

     

2003

 

2013

           

Asphal

t road

       

Asph

Land Area

Built

Unbuilt

Green

Area

Hard

Paved

Built

Unbuilt

Green

Area

Hard

Paved

alt

road

Zone

     

49244.2

10885.

4665.2

   

46741.

10332.

4428.

1

68155.1

3359.9811

64795.1189

9036

57998

48561

6653

61502.1

596

3528

151

Zone

     

35281.6

10087.

4323.2

   

33449.

9563.6

4098.

2

66998.67

17306.182

49692.488

6648

57506

46456

19887

47111.67

2857

6901

715

Zone

     

68092.6

31776.

13618.

   

67001.

31267.

1340

3

120388.16

6900.37

113487.79

74

5812

5348

8718.2

111669.96

976

5888

0.4

Zone

     

73002.1

9733.6

4171.5

   

66333.

8844.4

3790.

4

98111.22

11203.86

86907.36

824

2432

5328

19143

78968.22

3048

4064

475

Zone

     

14212.1

5356.8

2295.8

   

12276.

4627.1

1983.

5

24137.51

2272.6136

21864.8964

8266

99618

14122

5251.068

18886.442

1873

7829

076

Zone

     

69636.5

28628.

12269.

   

69190.

28444.

1219

6

122072.45

11538.1779

110534.2721

9142

37647

3042

12246.5

109825.95

3485

92105

0.68

Zone

     

50990.3

19219.

8236.9

   

51285.

19330.

8284.

7

89149.04

10702.294

78446.746

849

45277

0833

10249

78900.04

026

5098

504

Zone

     

42059.8

13227.

5668.9

   

29782.

9366.3

4014.

8

62545.8

1589.5602

60956.2398

0546

50404

30301

19382.88

43162.922

41618

54074

152

Zone

     

74957.8

21431.

9184.9

   

71740.

20511.

8790.

9

116080.49

10506.1

105574.39

169

60117

7193

15038

101042.49

1679

62547

697

Zone

     

43667.8

9652.8

4136.9

   

45906.

10147.

4349.

10

62304.04

4846.31

57457.73

748

9864

5656

1900.643

60403.3975

5821

77078

045

 

829942.48

80225.4488

749717.0312

521145.

16000

68571.

118469.3

711473.1915

49370

15243

6532

4694

0.0933

46854

6.8905

6.4107

9.89

The Built up/covered area in 2003 was 9.6% of the total site area which increased upto 14.2% in 2013 w.r.t total site area. Which lead to the enhancement of rooftop area majorly affecting the storm water runoff while reducing on the quantity of water getting absorbed through soft green spaces which have reduced from 62.79% in 2003 to 59.4% in 2013 (W.r.t the site area)

37

F i g u r e 2 J a m i a M a s

Figure 2 Jamia Master Plan 2003

Built Unbuilt Proportions 2003

250000

200000

150000

100000

50000

0

i o n s 2 0 0 3 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 Figure 4

Figure 4 Built Unbuilt Proportions 2003

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March Figure 3 Jamia Master Plan 2013 Built Unbuilt Proportions

Figure 3 Jamia Master Plan 2013

Built Unbuilt Proportions 2013 Asphalt area Hard Paved Green Area Unbuilt Built
Built Unbuilt Proportions 2013
Asphalt area
Hard Paved
Green Area
Unbuilt
Built

Figure 5 Built Unbuilt Proportions 2013

1.1.1. Rainwater Availability Considering an Average Daily Rainfall Intensity 611 (mm) and a raining period of 30 days, the intensity is calculated to be 20.7~21mm. Whereas the Rain Water potential is calculated separately for Built (Rooftop) Areas with 0.85as coefficient factor and Un-built Areas are further divided owing to the variation in coefficient factor:

1. Open Green/Soft Areas,

2. Hard Paved Open Surfaces &

3. Asphalt Road Areas,

Having 0.7, 0.65 & 0.3 coefficient factor respectively as given in the table below. The total rain Water Potential comes out to be 947860.4341 cu.m./year for 2003 and 960459.7994

cu.m./year for 2013.

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

Table 3 Zone Wise Potential for Rain Water Availability 2003

2003

Zone Wise Potential for Rain Water Availability

 
 

Green Area

Hard Area

Asphalt Road

Built Area

Total Potential

Potential

Potential

Area Potential

Potential

2003

 

Q=CxIxA

Q=CxIxA

Q=CxIxA

Q=CxIxA

Zone 1

58600.7055

12028.5659

2379.276766

4855.17269

77863.72086

Zone 2

41985.1831

11146.7704

2204.855693

25007.43299

80344.24224

Zone 3

81030.2821

35113.1222

6945.452748

9971.03465

133059.8917

Zone 4

86872.5971

10755.6549

2127.492173

16189.5777

115945.3218

Zone 5

16912.4974

5919.37408

1170.865202

3283.926652

27286.6633

Zone 6

82867.5438

31634.356

6257.345144

16672.66707

137431.912

Zone 7

60678.558

21237.4953

4200.823248

15464.81483

101581.6914

Zone 8

50051.1685

14616.392

2891.154454

2296.914489

69855.6294

Zone 9

89199.8021

23681.9193

4684.335684

15181.3145

132747.3716

Zone 10

51964.771

10666.453

2109.847846

7002.91795

71743.9898

 

620163.11

176800

34971.449

115925.77

947860.4341

 

Table 4 Zone Wise Potential for Rain Water Availability 2013

 

2013

Zone Wise Potential for Rain Water Availability

 
 

Green Area

hard Area

Asphalt Road

Built Area

Total Potential

Potential

Potential

Area Potential

Potential

2013

 

Q=CxIxA

Q=CxIxA

Q=CxIxA

Q=CxIxA

Zone 1

55622.4992

11417.2498

2258.357112

9613.585

78911.6912

Zone 2

39804.65

10567.8543

2090.344798

28736.715

81199.56404

Zone 3

79732.3514

34550.6856

6834.201552

12597.799

133715.0376

Zone 4

78936.6327

9773.10691

1933.142026

27661.635

118304.5166

Zone 5

14608.6629

5113.03201

1011.368969

7587.79326

28320.85713

Zone 6

82336.5147

31431.6378

6217.24703

17696.1925

137681.592

Zone 7

61029.1809

21360.2133

4225.097142

14809.805

101424.2964

Zone 8

35441.0753

10349.8213

2047.21739

28008.25871

75846.37261

Zone 9

85370.7998

22665.3461

4483.255281

21729.91

134249.3112

Zone 10

54628.8327

11213.2867

2218.012756

2746.428413

70806.56058

 

587511.2

168442

33318.2441

171188.12

960459.7994

Proceeding of iiSBE Net Zero Built Environment 2014 17 th Rinker International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March

International Conference, Gainesville, FL, 6&7 March Due to the enhancement in built-up area in case of

Due to the enhancement in built-up area in case of 2013 there is a 1.3% improvement (12,599.365 cu.m/year) in university rain water potential from: 9, 47,860.4341 cu.m./year in 2003 to 9, 60,459.7994 cu.m./year in 2013 against the water demands of 2,03,812 kiloliters/annually in 2003 & 4, 11,665.25 kiloliters/annually in 2013 (As calculated in Section2.2) . As compared to the increase in water demand which is almost by 50% the rain water potential has negligible improvement over the time.

1.1.2.Ground water Availability is less in northern parts of the campus and increases in depth towards South from <8.0 Meters to 12.0 Meters. However the majority of area the existing ground water level is between 8.0 to 10.0 meter

Figure 6 Depth to Water Level Table for Jamia

Table 5 Zone Wise Ground water Potential for 2003

& 2013 respectively.

         

2003

 

2013

         

Ground Water

   

Spe

cific

Yiel

d

water

fluctuati

on Level

Availability

2003

Q=AxWKFxSp.

yld.

water

fluctuation

Level

Ground Water