Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Vol. 1(2):21-33
ISSN: 2408-7491
www.pencilacademicpress.org/pppse
(c)2015 PENCIL Academic Press
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Research
ABSTRACT
*Corresponding author.
E-mail: ify.nwaogazie@cohseuniport.com,
ifynwaogazie@yahoo.com.
Key words: Computer software, WASDIM, WASDIMPRO, EPANET-2, water distribution network Analysis, test of significance,
Choba - Uniport.
INTRODUCTION
Increasing complexities associated with water
distribution systems necessitated precise estimation of
flows and pressures in various parts of the system.
Solution of single pipe flow problem was no longer
adequate. Quest for methods that analyze (solve for
flows and pressures) for entire water distribution
network gave birth to the topic water distribution
network analysis or pipe network analysis.
The analysis of pipe networks has long been one of the
most computationally complex problems which
hydraulic engineers have to contend with. The basic
hydraulic equations describing the phenomena are nonlinear algebraic equations which cannot be solved
directly. Therefore all current numerical methods of
solution are iterative, that is, they start with an assumed,
approximate solution that is improved. These equations
are usually written in terms of the unknown flow rates in
the pipes, often referred to as LOOP equations.
Alternatively, they are expressed in terms of unknown
heads at junctions throughout the pipe system (node
equations). The most commonly used solution methods
are: Hardy Cross, Newton-Ralphson and Linear theory.
These algorithms and techniques which are currently in
use are employed in proprietary and commercial
software.
A considerable amount of published materials dealing
with pipe network analyses are available in literature, all
of which cannot be cited herein. However, some
principal contributions of historical interest will be cited.
Hardy Cross (1936) authored the original and classic
work titled Analysis of Flow in Networks of Conduits or
Conductors. In this study, only Closed Loop Networks
are considered with no pumps, and a method for solving
the loop equations based on adjusting flow rates to
individually balance each of the energy equations is
described. Hardy Cross also described a second method
for solving the node equations by adjusting the head at
each node so that the continuity equation is balanced.
A number of subsequent works have appeared which
further describe these methods or computer programs
utilizing these methods (Fietz, 1972; Chenoweth and
Crawford, 1974; Jeppson, 1977). Because the head
adjustments are computed independent of each other,
'Convergence' problems often arises in using the Hardy
Cross method. Subsequent efforts are needed following
Hardy Cross concentrated on developing methods to
improve convergence.
McPherson and Prasad (1965) presented the method
of equalizing storage. An empirical formula based upon
assumptions such as proportional loading is used in the
analysis. The validity of this formula has also been
(1)
Where
Q in and Qout are the pipe flows in and out of the node,
respectively, and Qext is the external demand or supply
at the node.
hLij
i , jIp
Where:
=
j;
Ip
=
k
=
Jp
=
Hpump, k =
loop.
H pump, k 0 (2)
kJp
Where:
Study area
The study area is the Choba Park premises of the
University of Port Harcourt (Uniport for short, see Figure
1a). The University has three campuses within the radius
of 1.2 km namely Choba park, Abuja park and Delta park.
Each campus has an isolated water distribution network.
However, Choba park has a perimeter of 2,500 m, a land
area of 121 acres and houses four large blocks of hostels,
facilities of Engineering, Education, Agricultural science
and business centres that include banks, canteens and
photocopying outlets.
The perimeter of Choba is bounded by five coordinates
which makes it a polygon of five sides. Any of the five
coordinates such as 40 53 44N, 60 5424.65E is
sufficient to google the map of the study area. The
existing water distribution network of Choba park is
shown in Figure 1b with indications of the existing Over
Head Tank (OHT) position.
n 1
p ,i , j
Q p
p ,i , j
Qin, j
nK p ,i , j Qin, j 1
...................................(4)
Qi , j new Qi , j old
0 (3)
pMp
(5)
Gradient method
The method is used to solve the flow continuity and
headloss equations that characterize the hydraulic state
of the pipe network at a given point in time and can be
termed a hybrid node-loop approach. Todini and Pilati
(1987) and Salgado et al. (1988) chose to call it the
"Gradient Method". Similar approaches have been
described by Hamam and Brameller (1971) (the "Hybrid
Method) and by Osiadacz (1987) (the "Newton LoopNode Method"). The only difference between these
methods is the way in which link flows are updated after
Pij
1
nr Qij
n 1
2m Qij
Existing
water
distribution
network.
Source
(9)
(8)
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
Pipe- ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
Length(ft)
1000
1500
1200
1000
2000
1500
Diameter(in)
13
8
13
8
13
6
Figure 3. Flow diagram of EPARNET-2 Print out of Network 2 (OHT positioned at highest point).
Roughness
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
0.0005
S/N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Pipe ID
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
26
27
Length( m)
53.5
96.28
53.5
53.5
139.1
53.5
53.5
96.28
115.533
62.4
53.5
62.4
53.5
64.19
56.5
42.79
10
64.2
42.79
Diameter (m)
75
75
75
100
100
75
75
75
150
75
100
75
100
100
75
75
150
100
100
Roughness
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
140
120
Network 2
( )2
6.665
= 1168.0158; = 34.176; t =
= 15.284 = 0.4361
Node number
1
2
3
4
5
WASDIMPRO
1000
922.76
755.86
904.5
750
WASDIM
1000
903.02
799.26
854.18
750
EPANET 2
1000
999.38
997.78
999.06
997.39
Table 4. T-test analysis between pressure heads for WASDIM and WASDIMPRO.
S/N (1)
1
2
3
4
5
WASDIMPRO (3)
1000
922.76
755.86
904.5
750
WASDIM (4)
1000
903.02
799.26
854.18
750
di(5)
0
19.74
-43.4
50.32
0
26.66
F^2(6)
44.422225
170.955625
2506.504225
1905.759025
44.422225
4672.063325
N/S
1
2
3
4
5
EPANET 2 (3)
1000
999.38
997.78
999.06
997.39
WASDIM (4)
1000
903.02
799.26
854.18
750
= 137.43;
9113.1105; = 95.4626; t =
2 =
( 1 )2
1
137.43
= 47.7313 = 2.879
di(5)
0
96.36
198.52
144.88
247.39
687.15
F^2(6)
18887.0049
1686.7449
3731.9881
55.5025
12091.2016
36452.442
% error
8
6
iteration versus
versus error
error for
for
iteration
WASDIM
WASDIM simulator
simulator
44
22
00
00
1000
500
500
1000
No. of iterations
1500
1500
No. of iterations
Pressure (m)
10
10
Pressure (m)
11
11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Time (h)
Figure 5. EPANET-2 output printout of pressure distribution at Note 3 for Network 2.
Pressure (m)
10
9.0
8.0
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Time (h)
Figure 6. EPANET-2 output printout of pressure distribution at Note 15 for Network 2.
Node ID
Junc 7
Junc 8
Junc 9
Junc 11
Junc 12
Junc 14
Junc 16
Junc 18
Junc 4
Junc 13
Junc 15
Junc 17
Resvr 2
Tank 1
Demand
LPS
0.40
O.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.38
0.01
0.08
0.01
-88.88
87.92
Head
M
10.49
10.49
10.49
10.50
10.49
10.49
10.49
10.49
10.48
10.49
10.50
10.49
-150.00
10.50
Pressure
M
8.49
8.39
8.69
8.50
8.59
8.39
8.59
8.99
8.68
8.79
8.30
8.39
0.00
0.50
Pump characteristics
Head (m) Flow (m3/s)
OHT
(m)
Filling
time (h)
Time to
empty (h)
Size of
OHT (m)
10
11
D=6m
H=3m
150
135
Option 1,
case 2
10
15
D=6m
H=3m
150
135
Option 2,
case 1
10
Option 2,
case 2
15
11
D=6m
H=3m
150
135
Option 2,
case 3
15
15
D=6m
H=3m
150
135
S/N
Item
Description
Option 1,
case 1
the low land with reference to the earth surface and this
he says is a case of 70 in 100. EPANET-2 print-out of
pressure distributions at Nodes 3 and 15 (See Figure 3
on Network diagram) are plotted as shown in Figures 5
and 6, respectively. The abscissa indicates the time
frame to fill the OHT and equally empties it at the point
of interest. The best network for Choba park is Option 1,
case 2 (OHT height of 10m at the highest point) and this
would save up to 5 m of the OHT height when compared
with option 2, case 3 which is the perfect working
network if the OHT is place on the lowest point of Choba
park (OHT height of 15 m at lowest point).
CONCLUSION
The results presented in this study show the following
conclusions:
1. WASDIM and WASDIMPro are not significantly
different because they are operated with the same
principle (Hardy-Cross method)
2. WASDIM and EPANET-2 can be used to model simple
networks with relatively flat terrains but WASDIM has a
very slow rate of convergence compared to EPANET.
3. The water distribution Network of Choba is a failure
because of the insufficient OHT height of 10 m provided
and positioned on the lowest point in Choba park.
4. EPANET-2 can handle time dependent analysis of
water distribution network showing important features
like time for water to fill and empty the over head tank
(OHT}.
5. The best water distribution network design for Choba
would be to position the OHT on the highest point in
Choba park and provide a 10 m height for the OHT.
REFERENCES
Adam, R. W. (1961). Distribution Analysis by Electronic
Computer, Institution of Engineers, London, pp. 415-426.
Adenrian, A. E., and Oyelowo, M. A. (2013). An EPANET analysis
of water distribution network of the University of Lagos,
Nigeria. J. Eng. Res., 18(2).
Simon, L. A. (1981). Practical Hydraulics, New York: John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., pp. 92-94.
Anicho, C. U. (2008). Developing Supply Scheme for
Oromerueziegbu Village in Port Harcourt City Local
Government Rivers State, Final Year Project of Civil and
Environmental Engineering University of Port Harcourt.
Chan, F. L., and Wolla, M. L. (1972). Computer Analysis of Water
Distribution System: Part I Formulation of Equations, ASCE,
98(HY2):335-343.
Chattel Associates (1995). Water Supply Rehabilitation Study of
Kidney Island; A Consultancy Report for Shell Petroleum
Development Company (SPDC), by Chattel Associates Nigeria
Limited, Port Harcourt.