FINAL FINAL (For Website)

Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.
W ATER 2222
E CUADOR
RURAL TORRE DEL AGUA Y DISEÑO DEL SISTEMA DE DISTRIBUCIÓN
Travis Befus, Josías Dobson, Brett Nicholson
09 de mayo de 2012
© 2012 Travis Befus, Josías Dobson, Brett Nicholson y Calvin College
EQUALITY SUMMARY
Agua 2 Ecuador es un equipo de estudiantes de ingeniería superiores en Calvin College que se centran en el servicio
a las comunidades rurales en Ecuador por suministrar agua potable y sistemas de distribución sostenible. Esto se
logrará a través del diseño de un depósito de almacenamiento de agua elevados y un sistema de distribución
complementaria. El equipo está colaborando con HCJB manos Global, una organización de misión comprometida a
suministrar agua potable y atención médica a la gente de Ecuador.
El diseño será satisfacer las necesidades específicas de dos comunidades rurales: Iniayua y Washintsa, situado en la
región amazónica al sureste de Ecuador. La versatilidad del diseño permite HCJB utilizar el mismo diseño del
sistema para proyectos futuros de agua en todo el país.
Varias limitaciones de diseño clave funcionaban como guía para lo que se considera un producto final adecuado. Para que el diseño
ser considerado sostenible, debe soportar, con un mantenimiento limitado, climatológica de la zona. El sistema también debe ser
diseñado con capacidad de almacenamiento adecuada para prever demandas diarias de uso de cada comunidad, a pesar de la
limitada energía solar. Construcción de la torre fue limitado a los materiales localmente disponibles o los materiales que pueden ser
volados en el uso de pequeños aviones monomotores. La estructura debe construirse sin el uso de electricidad o de mano de obra
calificada. Finalmente, el grupo tuvo que trabajar con las comunidades en el Ecuador para asegurar que su diseño era social y
culturalmente aceptable y su diseño de molde en consecuencia.
Agua 2 Ecuador propone una torre de modulares, de madera de 8 metros de altura con una capacidad de tanque de
almacenamiento de 4.400 litros para satisfacer las demandas de cada sitio. Sierras de cadena, pernos, tuberías, conexiones de
grifo, paneles solares, cemento y otros materiales de construcción no nativas de la selva amazónica se se iza en MAF (beca de la
aviación de la misión) de la base aérea más cercana en el Shell. La gente de Iniayua y Washintsa ha acordado ofrecer todos
madera estructural, arena, piedras, agua y comida como muestra de cooperación y agradecimiento. El sistema final incluirá una
bomba solar Grundfos 2.5-2 SQF y varios paneles solares de 80 vatios, dependiendo de las condiciones. Una cabeza de presión
mínima de 5 metros se utilizará para servicios de la cámara, por la petición del cliente. Presión en el sistema de distribución será
proporcionada por el embalse elevado y el sistema consistirá en tubo de PVC que cumplan o superen los criterios fijados por
HCJB.
El costo aproximado para los tanques de almacenamiento y Torre de Iniayua es de $6.000. Este precio incluye todos los
materiales, mano de obra, transporte, instalación y un factor de contingencia del 20%. Costo total para un sistema completo
para Washintsa es aproximadamente $14.000. Los precios variarán dependiendo del mercado local, ubicación del sitio,
disponibilidad de materiales y corriente impuestos gravados los componentes depósito y bombeo de importación.
me
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... i
1 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. ii
2 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................... v
3 Table of Tables .................................................................................................................................... vi
1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Iniayua................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1.2 Washintsa .............................................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Team 11 ........................................................................................................................................ 4
1.2.1 Travis Befus .......................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.2 Josiah Dobson ....................................................................................................................... 4
1.2.3 Brett Nicholson ..................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.4 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 5
1.4.1 Stage One .............................................................................................................................. 5
1.4.2 Stage Two ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.4.3 Stage Three ........................................................................................................................... 6
2 Design Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 7
2.1 Integrating Quality and Constraints .............................................................................................. 7
3 Design Norms ....................................................................................................................................... 9
3.1 Stewardship ................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 Transparency ................................................................................................................................. 9
3.3 Cultural Appropriateness .............................................................................................................. 9
4 Tower Design Requirements and Constraints ..................................................................................... 11
4.1 Functional Requirements of Tower............................................................................................. 11
4.2 Design Requirements of Tower .................................................................................................. 11
ii
4.3 Constraints on Tower Design ...................................................................................................... 11
5 Distribution System Design Requirements and Constraints ............................................................... 13
5.1 Hydraulic Variables .................................................................................................................... 13
5.2 Pump ........................................................................................................................................... 14
5.2.1 Sand..................................................................................................................................... 16
5.3 Solar Panels................................................................................................................................. 16
5.3.1 Cloudy weather ................................................................................................................... 17
5.4 Tank Storage ............................................................................................................................... 17
5.5 Designing for Village Growth..................................................................................................... 18
5.6 Flow Rates .................................................................................................................................. 19
6 Design Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 21
6.1 Tower Alternatives...................................................................................................................... 21
6.1.1 Alternative 1 – Steel Structure ............................................................................................ 21
6.1.2 Alternative 2 – Timber Structure ........................................................................................ 22
6.2 Tank Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 23
6.2.1 550L Plastic Indeltro Tank .................................................................................................. 23
6.2.2 5000L Collapsible Tank ...................................................................................................... 23
6.3 Design Selection Process ............................................................................................................ 24
7 Trip Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 25
7.1 Survey Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 26
8 Design Calculations and Modeling ..................................................................................................... 27
8.1 Tower Calculations ..................................................................................................................... 27
8.1.1 Load on Tower .................................................................................................................... 27
8.1.2 Wind Load .......................................................................................................................... 28
8.1.3 Column Design ................................................................................................................... 28
8.1.4 Beam Design ....................................................................................................................... 29
8.1.5 Joist Design ......................................................................................................................... 30
iii
8.1.6 Connection Design .............................................................................................................. 30
8.1.7 Foundation Design .............................................................................................................. 30
8.2 Computer Software Modeling ..................................................................................................... 31
8.3 Distribution System Modeling .................................................................................................... 32
8.3.1 System Pressure .................................................................................................................. 33
8.3.2 Weekly Weather Analysis ................................................................................................... 33
9 Final Design ........................................................................................................................................ 37
9.1 Spring Catchment........................................................................................................................ 37
9.2 Settling Tank ............................................................................................................................... 37
9.3 Pump and Solar Panels................................................................................................................ 38
9.4 Tower .......................................................................................................................................... 38
9.5 Distribution ................................................................................................................................. 39
9.5.1 Taps ..................................................................................................................................... 39
9.6 Materials and Transportation ...................................................................................................... 40
9.7 Maintenance ................................................................................................................................ 40
10 Budget ............................................................................................................................................. 41
10.1 Team Budget Management ......................................................................................................... 41
10.2 Project Construction Costs .......................................................................................................... 42
11 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 43
11.1 Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................... 43
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................... 44
iv
2 TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Locations of Iniayua and Washintsa (Google Maps) .................................................................... 2
Figure 2: Location of Shell, Iniayua, and Washintsa in Ecuador (Google Maps) ........................................ 3
Figure 3: Josiah Dobson, Brett Nicholson, Travis Befus .............................................................................. 4
Figure 7: Cessna 206 used to transport materials ....................................................................................... 12
Figure 8: Grundfos Pump Curve .................................................................................................................
14 Figure 9: Helical and Centrifugal Pump Curves .........................................................................................
15 Figure 10: SQF 5A-6 Pump Curve .............................................................................................................
15 Figure 11: Pump Dimensions
...................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 12: SQF 2.5-2 Pump
Curve with Measured Flow ........................................................................... 19 Figure 13: Steel Tower
Design ................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 14: Wood
Tower Design.................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 15: 550L
Water Tanks ..................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 16: Open
5000 Liter Tank ............................................................................................................... 23 Figure 17:
Josiah Measuring the Flow Rate at Iniayua ............................................................................... 25 Figure
18: Brett collecting survey data with the total station ..................................................................... 26 Figure
19: Connection Plate ........................................................................................................................ 30
Figure 20: Staad.Pro design with dead and live loads applied .................................................................... 31
Figure 21: Washintsa Daily Water Demand Rate ....................................................................................... 32
Figure 22: Iniayua Daily Water Demand Rate ............................................................................................
33 Figure 23: Type of Weather Patterns ..........................................................................................................
34 Figure 24: Washintsa Flow Rates ...............................................................................................................
34 Figure 25: Iniayua Flow Rates ....................................................................................................................
35 Figure 24: Spring Catchment ......................................................................................................................
37 Figure 25: Water Tower Configuration for Iniayua .................................................................................... 38 Figure 26: W
v
3 TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1: Decision Matrix used to Compare Alternatives ............................................................................ 24
Table 2: Red Oak Material Properties......................................................................................................... 27
Table 3: Column Design Adjustment Factors ............................................................................................. 29
Table 4: Minor Losses in System ................................................................................................................
32 Table 5: Preliminary Budget .......................................................................................................................
41 Table 6: Final Budget .................................................................................................................................. 41
vi
1 INTRODUCTION
Water 2 Ecuador is a project focused on providing clean water to rural communities in Ecuador through
the design of an elevated water storage reservoir and distribution system. The team of Calvin College
senior engineering students is working with HCJB Global, a mission organization dedicated to providing
clean water and health care to the people of Ecuador. The design will meet the specific needs of two
communities in southeast Ecuador, Iniayua and Washintsa, but will be adaptable for any village setting
throughout Ecuador.
1.1 BACKGROUND
HCJB Global Hands and their group of engineers are committed to developing essential healthcare
models that minister to emotional, physical, and spiritual needs of communities they serve. HCJB’s
mission is to equip their partners in community development and primary healthcare as well as toreach
out to them spiritually. Each of HCJB’s projects heavily relies on voluntary support to carryout their
i
work. Benefiting communities are an integral part of the clean water projects, encouraging sustainable
behavior. This is HCJB’s mission: “ Our mission is to enable communities to help themselves through
the facilitation of Christ centered sustainable community development. Through the provision of water,
sanitation and hygiene education projects we seek to realize permanent health improvements in the
communities with whom we work at both a physical and spiritual level.”
i
HCJB Global Hands is the Ecuadorian division of HCJB Global that is committed to improving rural
healthcare and community development. The water projects team consists of engineers and healthcare
professionals that teach better hygiene practices, design and construct water systems, and educate
communities on the importance of sanitation and safe drinking water. The key to Water Projects
involvement is in teaching the communities to take responsibility for their own sanitation and health.
For HCJB, clean water projects and community development go hand in hand. A community must be
fully committed to taking responsibility for improving their healthcare and hygiene before HCJB will get
involved. Experience has shown that without the community’s involvement in the project, thereis no
responsibility and the clean water systems are not maintained. When the community is united and
supplies the majority of the labor and resources, they feel pride in the finished project anda desire to
maintain the system.
The method usually employed in a water project is that HCJB will be approached by a community
desiring a water system for their village. HCJB conducts a preliminary feasibility study of the community
and provides training on basic sanitary practices. If the community is fully committed to take
1
responsibility of the project, HCJB completes all engineering design work for the system and supervises
construction of the project. The system is built, maintained, and managed by each community.
1.1.1 INIAYUA
Iniayua is a community located in the Eastern foothills of the Ecuador Rainforest basin west of Shell the
nearest major town out of which MAF conducts its flights. It is located in the Morona-Santiago province
25 kilometers east of the town of Macuma. Iniayua has an elevation of 1600 meters above sea level and is
located at latitude S -2.041, longitude W-77.569. The flight from Shell, where HCJB is based, to Iniayua is
25 minutes long. Figure 1 and Figure 2 display local and overview maps of the locations.
The climate is very rainy, with cool nights (10 - 15) °C and hot days (25 - 30) °C. Since climate data was
not readily available for the jungle communities, approximations of the temperature were used and are
based on conversations the team had with contacts in Ecuador. Iniayua is a community with about twenty
families and has a functioning water system in place; however the tower lacks structural integrity and is
critically under capacity. Nevertheless, the water distribution system is in good condition and can be used
again if the community had a new water tower. The community of Iniayua is located on flat terrain and
therefore required a sizable tower in order to provide sufficient water pressure to the entire community.
Figure 1: Locations of Iniayua and Washintsa (Google Maps)
2
Figure 2: Location of Shell, Iniayua, and Washintsa in Ecuador (Google Maps)
1.1.2 WASHINTSA
Washintsa is located approximately 2 kilometers north of the Pastaza River in the Pastaza province at
latitude S-2.171, longitude W-77.486. Washintsa has similar weather conditions to Iniayua and is located
in the same region of the jungle as Iniayua. Washintsa is about 1900 meters above sea level and is home
to fifteen families. Unlike Iniayua, Washintsa has never had a water system. The team needed to collect
survey data and GPS data while at Washintsa because previous data was not available to HCJB. The team
also hiked to the nearby village of Santa Rosa to inspect their protected spring catchment, as Washintsa’s
source proved to be less abundant than desired for future growth.
3
1.2 TEAM 11
The team members, shown in Figure 3, are all senior engineering students in the civil and environmental
concentration. Each member brings a unique set of skills and experiences to create a well-equipped
team capable of producing a quality design. All three of the members have spent extensive time living
and serving in mission settings in developing nations. The combined experiences are ideal for the
international and mission aspects of the project. The team members are committed to utilizing their
education in providing a better way of life for rural communities.
Figure 3: Josiah Dobson, Brett Nicholson, Travis Befus
1.2.1 TRAVIS BEFUS

Travis Befus was born in Costa Rica and lived in Mexico where his parents served as missionaries. He
currently lives in Wisconsin and is pursuing a position with the Peace Corp after graduation. Travisis
graduating with a degree in engineering in the civil and environmental concentration.
1.2.2 JOSIAH DOBSON

Josiah Dobson spent the first 17 years of his life in Turkey, where his parents served as missionaries. His
life passion is ministry and mission work and he is planning on attending Moody Seminary in Chicago
after graduation. He currently works as an engineering intern for the city engineer of Kentwood providing
4
storm water and drainage system analysis. Josiah will be graduating in engineering with a concentration
in civil and environmental engineering as well as a math minor.
1.2.3 BRETT NICHOLSON

Brett Nicholson was born in Ontario, Canada, but grew up in Papua New Guinea where his parents have
been serving for the past 25 years with Mission Aviation Fellowship. He will be graduating with an
engineering degree in the civil and environmental concentration and a business minor. Brett has accepted
a position with InterOil Corporation in Papua New Guinea and will begin work in June, 2012.
1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT

The fundamental problem to be addressed is common for many rural communities in Ecuador; there is
limited access to a regular supply of clean water. Waterborne diseases due to unsafe drinking water and
poor sanitation habits lead to high infant mortality rates throughout Ecuador. Many villagers must
carry water by hand to their homes. One reason that children do not attend school is because they
spend more time retrieving water and preparing food.
1.4 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

There are three stages to the project. Stage one, occurring during the fall and interim semesters, included
all preliminary research, design, and fundraising. The second stage was going to Ecuador. The team
visited Ecuador in January and was able to collect site data, meet with HCJB engineers and end users,
and collect data on any and all materials the team would be using for the project. The third stage
consisted of finalizing the designs, finishing the final paper, presenting plans to both HCJB engineers
and the professors by May 9, and constructing a prototype system.
1.4.1 STAGE ONE

During the fall semester and the start of interim the team was able to maintain contact with HCJB and was
able to put together a problem statement and a list of design constraints. The team was also able to raise
enough money, as a result of a generous grant from Innotech, to travel to Ecuador on January 21 for ten
days. During the trip, the team also determined what the key objectives were that HCJB wanted met as
well as the requirements and constraints for the project. Preliminary research was conducted on pumps,
materials, sites, and construction techniques. Design alternatives were considered and compared based on
the different materials, costs, ease of construction, and durability.
1.4.2 STAGE TWO

Stage two of the project consisted of travelling to Ecuador between January 21 and January 31 of 2012.
The team was able to use this trip to meet with HCJB engineers Alex and Alfredo Leon and go over
5
preliminary designs as well as refine the problem statement. The team’s constraints, requirements, and
objectives were updated as a result of talking with HCJB engineers and the end users, the people living in
the communities. The team was also able to determine invaluable data regarding the following: materials,
transportation methods, pump flow rates, solar pump issues, soil data, and surveying studies which lead to
many important decisions. The team collected survey data in Washintsa and gathered information on
loads, topography, and wood native to Ecuador for each community. HCJB did not have a way of testing
the soils while the team was in Ecuador: however, soil types were assumed based on information
provided by HCJB engineer Alfredo Leon. Population demands and current water systems of the
communities were evaluated and the data was used in the third stage to help with modeling of the final
project.
1.4.3 STAGE THREE

The third stage took place during the spring semester of 2012. The team analyzed the data collected and
made site specific adjustments to the designs. The team was able to successfully model the tower
structure in Staad.Pro and draw two and three dimensional sketches of the tower in AutoCad and
Inventor respectively. All water distribution modeling was done with EPANET, which was used to
calculate the pressure at each house in the communities. The structure was checked with hand
calculations against Allowable Stress Design (ASD) codes and the water distribution system was checkedusing formulas
from the May’s text: Water Distribution Systems Handbook. The team constructed a prototype of the
water tower to display during senior design banquet night and was able to verify that the tower would be
simply constructible, cheap, and sturdy enough to meet the requirements, constraints, and objectives set
by HCJB and Team 11.
6
2 DESIGN OBJECTIVES
The team identified three key objectives to be met by the project design. The first objective is to design
an inexpensive, elevated water reservoir that is simple to construct and uses materials that can be sourced
onsite or flown in by single-engine aircraft. The water tower is to be constructed by the semi-skilled
local labor force and without the use of electricity. All materials must be available within Ecuador.
The second objective is for the tower to provide adequate storage and pressure to meet the site
demands. The tower must be tall enough to meet the minimum head requirements at each node, and
provide capacity for the community’s current and projected usage demands.
Objective three is to design a complete water distribution system for Washintsa. This included
determining the optimal pump and number of solar panels, tower location, capacity, and piping
requirements to each household.
2.1 INTEGRATING QUALITY AND CONSTRAINTS

Quality is a major objective for Water 2 Ecuador. Due to the implications that subpar quality would have
on the stakeholders, our project must meet high standards of quality. Quality is not merely obtaining
opulence, excellence, superiority, and exceeding design specifications; rather, quality consists of
delivering consistency, striving for continuous improvement, meeting the customer’s criteria, staying on
budget, and staying on schedule. To achieve quality throughout the project, the group regularly
rebalanced the budget, reorganized the schedule, reevaluated safety factors, and readjusted the design
criteria.
Over-designing in any one category generally demonstrates poor stewardship and causes another category
to lack sufficient attention. The issue of quality is especially difficult because under-designing the system
can lead to even more catastrophic results than over-designing it, especially in the case where an entire
village’s lives are at stake. One example of the group making a quality decision was when the group opted
to utilize white PVC pipe, which is not recycled, over recycled, blue PVC pipe. The decision was tough
because the recycled PVC was both less expensive and seemed to be a better decision from a stewardship
perspective; however, the slight risk of contamination of the recycled PVC, due to a lack of integrity in
some Ecuadorian standards, made the team choose the more expensive white PVC.
Another example of a quality based decision the team struggled with throughout the project is the safety
factor that was applied to the tower. According to the structural calculations and StaadPro modeling based
on ASD design code (and using the assumption that the engineers at HCJB suggested, we modeled the
construction wood as red oak) the posts of our tower have a safety factor that might be considered over-
designed. The increased size of the column was accepted per customer request, due to the villager’s
7
experience of the first tower being under-designed and collapsing; however the design still had to be
optimized for implementation at other locations where such a high factor of safety is not required.
Due to the remote location of the systems, quality must also be designed into the longevity of the system.
The water system has a 10 year design life, so all materials and components must withstand the elements
and daily use with limited maintenance.
8
3 DESIGN NORMS
Three design norms were deemed relevant and crucial to the work of Water 2 Ecuador. These moral and
ethical guidelines must be paired with the technical aspects of the design for the project to be a success
in the community. The impact of the project on the local community, both functionally and ethically,
was taken into account.
3.1 STEWARDSHIP
Final tower and distribution system designs demonstrate good stewardship of resources in Ecuador. As
agents of renewal on earth, the team has a responsibility to wisely use the resources provided. All
materials chosen for the designs are available in the villages or in Shell or Quito. This local use of
material supports the local businesses in Ecuador and reduces transportation costs.
As a ministry based project, most of the funding is provided by donations from churches and individuals.
By minimizing project costs, the team is managing the financial resources wisely to provide as much
benefit to the community as possible. The design balances safety and reliability without wasting valuable
resources unnecessarily.
3.2 TRANSPARENCY
Another design norm that the team considered imperative for the success of this project was transparency.
The team maintained open communication with Alex and Alfredo Leon, the team’s HCJB contacts in
Ecuador. Regular updates on the project were provided and major decisions were discussed with Alfredo
throughout the design process.
The team travelled to Ecuador and met with Alex and Alfredo to gain a better understanding of the
project requirements. Another fundamental reason for the trip to Ecuador was also meeting with the end
users of the system, the community members of Washintsa and Iniayua. The team was able to discuss
with the village leaders problems that they were having with their current systems and what they hoped
to gain through the construction of our new system. The leaders were able to provide input in the design
process so that the designs could effectively meet their needs.
3.3 CULTURAL APPROPRIATENESS

HCJB has been working with the people of Ecuador for many years and has a firm grasp on what makes a
project successful. The cultural and communal aspects of the project ultimately determine the project’s
success. Alfredo Leon explains that without involving the community in the design and construction
process, the people take no ownership of the water system, which leads to deterioration and failure within
a few years.
9
The team lived in the villages for one week so they could talk with the people and actively involve
everyone in the process. The team determined that it would not be culturally appropriate to show any one
person or family preference over any other. Each house must be provided with the same type of water
tap and that the design should not expect two houses to share a tap while other houses each had their
own. Piping was determined to provide similar water pressure to all families in the community.
10
4 TOWER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS
The tower was designed to meet both the functional and design requirements and is constrained by
material selection, cost, and design simplicity. The distribution and pumping system must also meet the
specific requirements provided by HCJB.
4.1 FUNCTIONAL REQUIREMENTS OF TOWER

The tower was designed to meet two functional requirements: Sufficient pressure in the system and
ample capacity to meet daily demand conditions. The pressure in the system is determined by the water
head provided by the height of the elevated storage tanks. HCJB provides minimum and maximum
pressure constraints and daily demand data for their systems and communities.
The minimum head of pressure at any household node is 5 meters. The maximum pressure at any
household node may not exceed 80 meters of head.i For a community in which the tower is situated at a
higher elevation than the houses, the minimum tower height requirement reduces accordingly. Head
losses due to pipe friction must also be taken into account.
Reservoir capacity requirements are determined by the daily demands for each community. HCJB
requires minimum system storage of 35% of average daily demand.i The given daily demand per capita
per day is 50 liters. Washintsa has an estimated population of 120, which yields an average daily demand
of 6000 liters. The minimum reservoir capacity, based on 35% of average daily demand is 2,100 liters for
Washintsa. Iniayua, with a population of 200, yields an average demand of 10,000 liters per day. The
minimum reservoir capacity, based on 35% of average daily demand is 3,500 liters for Iniayua.
4.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OF TOWER

The design requirements of the tower are based on the mass of water stored in the reservoir and on the
wind and seismic loadings provided by the Uniform Building Code. The structure must support the
reservoir weight as well as the specified maximum wind loads and earthquakes forces. The tower also has
to support a vertical loading equal to the mass of water and reservoir plus the weight due to the joists,
floorboards, and roof structure.
4.3 CONSTRAINTS ON TOWER DESIGN

Due to the remote locations, Washintsa and Iniayua are only accessible by air. All supplies and materials
are constrained to what is available on site, or can be transported in single-engine aircraft from Shell or
Quito, Ecuador. The communities are located in the Amazon basin, so wood is an inexpensive, abundant
resource available on site. Sand and gravel are also available to be used for a concrete foundation.
However, all pipes, tanks, pumps, solar panels, and cement must be flown in from Shell.
11
Each village has a small airstrip that is served by Mission Aviation Fellowship (MAF), a mission
organization that provides support to rural communities throughout the world. MAF in Ecuador operate
Cessna 206 aircraft, a single-engine five passenger plane. All materials flown in to the site must meet the
weight and length requirements of the plane. The longest piece of pipe or steel must be less than2 meters
long. The size of the plane also constrains the size of water tank that can be used. The largesthard plastic
tank that will fit has a capacity of 550 liters.
The weight capacity of the Cessna 206 (Figure 4) varies with the length of flight and the availability
of fuel at the destination. The maximum loading to each village is roughly 360 kilograms depending
on weather and other external factors.
Figure 4: Cessna 206 used to transport materials
The complexity of the construction methods are constrained by both the lack of skilled labor and the lack
of electricity on site. All construction will be conducted by the local community members under the
supervision of the HCJB engineer. Simple and straightforward methods will also reduce the possibilities
for error. The lack of electricity requires that any metal work must be conducted in Shell before the
pieces are transported to the village. All structure pieces must be predrilled, cut or welded so that a
simple assembly is all that is required on site.
12
5 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM DESIGN REQUIREMENTS AND CONSTRAINTS
The main objective of the distribution system is reliability. When someone in the village turns on the
faucet, the system should be able to provide the necessary flow of water. The major factors to consider
when designing the distribution system are pressure and flow rate. The tower height controls the system
pressure, and pump power controls the flow rate.
The distribution system in Washintsa is designed around rainy conditions. The ideal system should be
able to handle two consecutive days of cloudy weather without being drained. The size of the tower limits
the amount of tank space available. As a result of space limitations, the distribution system in Iniayua is
designed to withstand one cloudy day.
5.1 HYDRAULIC VARIABLES

Many variables affect the flow of water throughout the system. Pressure is controlled by tank elevation. In
Washintsa, the tanks will be located on a hill, and in Iniayua, the tanks will be placed on top of an 8 meter
tall tower. HCJB requires a water pressure head of at least 5 meters throughout the village. The higher the
tank elevation, the more energy is required to pump the water. The flow rate will decrease as tank
elevation increases according to the specific pump curve. In order to balance the flow rate with energy
consumption, the tanks in Washintsa will be set at a location that is no more than 6 meters up on a hill.
At the request of HCJB, the pressure in Iniayua will be fixed at 8 meters head on top of a water tower.
Pressure and pump power are the two major factors that affect the flow of water. According to the pump
output power formula:
=
Equation 1: Pump Output Power [SI Units]ii
the power that the pump receives from the solar panels gets split into pressure energy and flow energy.
Flow energy is inversely proportional to system pressure. A highly pressurized system will take away
energy from the flow rate. Figure 5 displays the relationship between flow rate, pressure, and pump power
for the Grundfos pump. For high pressure flows, the amount of wattage needed to maintain a certain flow
rate is much greater than that of a low pressure flow.
13
Figure 5: Grundfos Pump Curveiv
Since the pumps are operated by solar panels, the amount of sunlight received each day affects the
amount of energy provided to the pump. Sunlight, however, is not constant. Every day has different
weather, and energy received by the solar panels is decreased during cloudy weather. Modeling a system
whose source of power depends on the weather conditions adds more complexity to the system analysis.
During a trip down to Ecuador in January, Team Water2Ecuador analyzed how the pump system operates
in both sunny and cloudy conditions.
5.2 PUMP
The current pump that HCJB uses is a Grundfos 2.5-2 solar-powered pump. This pump can handle a
maximum of 900 Watts of power, maximum current of 8.4 amps, and a DC voltage that varies
between 30 – 300 volts. This pump can also handle an AC voltage 1 x 90-240 V –10%/+6%, 50/60 Hz.
iv
Two types of pumps are available in the Grundfos SQF series. One pump is the helical rotor pump that
is used for high heads and small flows. The other pump is the centrifugal pump that is designed for low
heads and large flows. For the systems in place down in Ecuador, the pump head is relatively low. The
iv
only use for the water is for cooking and washing. High head is not currently needed. Demand, however,
might increase in the future. Once the villagers start to become accustomed to flowing water, they might
want to increase their consumption. In addition, the villages that contain water distribution systems might
attract more people from outlining regions. The addition of population will also increase water
consumption. In order to account for large consumption, the Grundfos centrifugal pumps that provide for
large flows might be more suitable.
14
Figure 6: Helical and Centrifugal Pump Curvesiv
The type of pump that is being used in the village of Iniayua is an SQF 2.5-2 pump. This is a helical rotor
pump that pumps at a maximum flow of 2.4
. The villages currently need a flow rate that is less

than half that flow in order to meet daily demand. Therefore, this pump meets their requirements.
However, if the village expects exponential growth, a centrifugal pump might be a better fit.
The best pump option for large demand is the centrifugal SQF 5A-6 pump shown in Figure 7. This
pump has a higher flow rate capacity than the Grundfos 2.5-2.
Figure 7: SQF 5A-6 Pump Curveiv
According to the dimensions shown in Figure 8, the pump size of a 5A-6 pump is larger in diameter than
the 2.5-2 pump that HCJB currently uses. In other larger villages, this increased size needs to be taken
into account for the catch basin design. The benefit of using this pump is that the flow rate limit for a 5A-
15
6 pump is about four times greater than the 2.5-2 at peak sunlight conditions. This leaves more room for
demand growth. Some villages in Ecuador are large and might require a larger pump in order to meet the
demand. Therefore, if the villages expect large demands, the best recommended pump would be a
Grundfos 5A-6.
Figure 8: Pump Dimensionsiv
The downside to the SQF 5A-6 pump is that it has no flow during periods when the solar panels receive
less than 50 watts of solar energy. Therefore, during cloudy weather, this pump does not provide as
much flow as the SQF 2.5-2 pump. Both pumps are similar in price at $2000.
Since the villages of Washintsa and Iniayua have a low demand, the team has decided that the Grundfos
2.5-2 pump will be more suitable. The flow from the pump already over exceeds the demand of the
villagers during the daytime, and therefore a larger pump is not needed. For cloudy weather, when the
system is being drained, this pump will deliver more water to the tanks than the SQF 5A-6 pump. It meets
all demand and still has room for 100% demand growth. Designs for these two villages are based off of
this pump specification.
5.2.1 SAND
Sand is an abrasive that wears away at the pump. It goes through the pump and first starts to damage the
lower brushing. Once the lower brushing is compromised, the shaft becomes unstable, and the pump
starts to vibrate. If the problem continues, the pump will develop more internal problems and eventually
fail altogether. Grundfos put a sand concentration limit on its pump models. For the pump used in
iii
Ecuador, the sand concentration limit is 50 /

.iv
5.3 SOLAR PANELS

With the current demand conditions, the villages will need two 80 watt solar panels to operate the pump.
Solar panels are rated based on how much power they provide during peak sunlight hours. Therefore,
during peak sunlight, two new solar panels should provide 160 watts of power to the pump. During the
trip down to Ecuador, however, the measured wattage going into the pump was found to be 120 watts
instead of 160 watts. The system that was analyzed was a two year old system, and the age of the solar
panels probably contributed to the decrease in the expected performance. In order to model for future
16
conditions, the team decided that two year old solar panel observations will give a better estimate of the
overall expectancy of the power system than the Grundfos panel ratings. The distribution system was
designed around those two year old pump measurements.
Since the pump requires a power input of 250 watts for full capacity operation and the two solar panels
can only gather 120 watts, the pump will not be able to reach full maximum rated potential of 2.40

Due to a low demand in both villages, however, the measured pump flow rate of 1.45
using 120
peak wattage more than satisfies village needs. Adding more solar panels to reach maximum flow
operations will only cause the pump unnecessary wear and tear. A flow that is too high can also increase
the overflow onto the tower structure and damage the structural integrity of the tower. An addition of a
third solar panel will be needed only once the pump rate cannot keep up with the demand rate.
5.3.1 CLOUDY WEATHER

During the trip down to the villages, the typical day always had a high chance of clouds and precipitation.
From discussions with HCJB, cloudy weather is expected almost every other day. Cloudy weather can be
a big issue when dealing with solar energy. Cloudy weather can cause the energy output to be somewhere
between 50 % to 5 % of sunny conditions.
v
During the last week in January, 2012, the team took measurements of pump flow for cloudy conditions.
Using a timer and a one-liter bottle, the team took several recordings of the time the pump took to fill up a
liter at the top of the tower. Using the results of that experiment, the flow rate of water during sunny
weather was observed to be 1.45

(5.3 gpm), and the flow rate during cloudy weather was observed
to be 0.31 (1.1 gpm). The pump flow during cloudy weather operated at 20% of sunny conditions.

Since pump performance sharply decreases during cloudy weather, the team investigated several different
energy options. The team looked into battery, wind, and tank storage. After consulting with HCJB, the
battery proposal was discarded. They have tried battery systems in the past, and they have always been
unsuccessful. According to HCJB, the main reason for batteries failing is due to the neglect of the
villagers. Wind power was discarded as well because wind is even more unreliable than solar energy and
it would be a costly addition. The third option of adding more tank storage capacity was chosen as the
optimal way to store the excess pump flow during the day.
5.4 TANK STORAGE

The tank system works by storing the extra water that is pumped during sunlight hours and storing the
water for use during cloudy weather when the pump does not receive energy from the sun. The amount of
tanks will depend on the demand and size of the physical limitations of the structure that the tanks are
placed on.
17
When the climate outside is sunny, the pump can store more water at the top of the tower. When the
weather is not ideal, the extra water that is stored in the tanks can be used. In this way, a large-sized tank
helps the solar panels use all the sun’s energy when it is sunny and save it for a time when the sun is
not shining.
At the proposed demand rate and solar panel configuration in Washintsa, the system should be able to
meet all village demands, and the Grundfos 2.5-2 pump should pump an additional 10,200 liters of water
to the storage system during one sunny day. The village of Iniayua, due to an increased demand rate, can
pump an extra 8,300 liters of water to the tanks during a sunny day in addition to meeting the village’s
demand.
With the current demand rate, the village of Washintsa will require 6,000 liters of water every day, and
the village of Iniayua will require 10,000 liters of water every day. The distribution system in Washintsa
is modeled to store enough water to provide for two consecutive days of cloudy weather using a storage
capacity of 6,600 liters. The distribution system in Iniayua is modeled to store enough water to provide
for one day of cloudy weather using a storage capacity of 4,400 liters. The tanks do not store all the water
that is pumped during one sunny day. The team decided that the most efficient way to use the resources
for this project is to leave room for village growth.
5.5 DESIGNING FOR VILLAGE GROWTH

When the village increases its demand rate, the first improvement that the villages should do is to add
tanks and a solar panel. The added solar panel will increase pump speed and make more water available
to the system. In order to capture the increased flow, more tanks will be needed in the system. For the
village of Washintsa, Water2Ecuador recommends adding as many tanks that is needed to store enough
water for two cloudy days. The village can make these improvements until it has three solar panels. Once
the village has three solar panels, the pump will reach its maximum operation speed. Any more power to
the pump will not improve the flow in the system. If the village needs more water after adding three solar
panels, Water2Ecuador recommends adding another pump.
With the current demand rate, Iniayua will require 10,000 liters of water every day. As a result of the
higher demand rate and a size limitation related to the size of the tower, the storage capacity is designed
to withstand one cloudy day. If the village wanted to expand its distribution system due to further growth,
it would have to add another solar panel, extra tanks, and expand its tank sizes. Due to the fluid nature of
village growth, the team decided not to design for a huge system upgrade because it would add a higher
cost to the project. The village can slowly add more capacity to its system as it sees fit.
18
In both the design of Washintsa and Iniayua, the tank capacity is not at its maximum potential. During one
sunny day, the village of Washintsa could fill approximately10,400 liters and the village of Iniayua could
fill 8,800 liters of water to its storage tanks. The current system in both villages can only hold 6,600 liters
in Washintsa and 4,400 liters in Iniayua. The two reasons that Water2Ecuador did not maximize its tank
sizes are the increased cost and the variability of village growth. If the villages were to experience growth,
the demand would increase and the amount of extra water being pumped would decrease. Therefore,
adding a lot of tanks could be unnecessary. Leaving space for future growth is important. The villagers
should be able to add to the proposed system as they grow. After a few months of use, the villagers can
decide whether they want to add more storage tanks to the system.
5.6 FLOW RATES

During the trip, the team took measurements at the current system in Iniayua. The flow rate that the team
measured was taken from a two-year old system in the village of Iniayua. The flow was pumped from the
catchment basin into two tanks on top of an extremely weathered and insecure tower. The team tested the
flow rate into the tanks during sunny and cloudy conditions. Using a timer and a one-liter bottle, the team
took several recordings of the time the pump took to fill up a liter at the top of the tower. Using the
results of that experiment, the flow rate of water during sunny weather was observed to be 1.45
and the flow rate during cloudy weather was observed to be 0.31
. Cloudy weather can decrease
the output by a factor of five. Looking at the Grundfos pump curve in Figure 9, cloudy and sunny pump
performances are marked.
Figure 9: SQF 2.5-2 Pump Curve with Measured Flowiv
From a topographic map of Iniayua that was surveyed by the Ecuadorian government, the team
calculated the head of 8 meters that the pump had to overcome to pump the water up to thetower. The
expected flow rate of 1.45

can only be used for a pump head of 8 meters. The village of
19
Washintsa, however, has a catchment basin located in a depression by the river. The pump head required
to lift the water from the catchment basin in Washintsa to the proposed tank location is 10 meters. As a
result of the increase in pump head, the flow rate of water to the tanks using the same pumps in Washintsa
will be less than the 1.45

flow that was calculated in Iniayua.

In order to calculate the expected flow rate of water for the village of Washintsa, The SQF 2.5-2 pump
curves (Figure 9) was consulted. The graph shows the expected flow of water for a given head. From that
graph, the flow of water seemed to decrease at a rate of 0.05

for every meter increase in head.

Therefore, the expected flow rate of water for the system in Washintsa is 1.35 . At cloudy

conditions, the flow rate seems to only change approximately 0.005

for every meter of head. The
expected flow rate of water for the cloudy weather in Washintsa is 0.30
20
6 DESIGN ALTERNATIVES
The team considered multiple design alternatives during the first stage of the project. The alternatives
make use of various tower structure materials, tank configurations, pumps, and piping materials to meet
the requirements.
6.1 TOWER ALTERNATIVES

The tower alternatives included a complete steel tower, a timber frame tower, solid plastic tanks, and
collapsible bladder tanks. Research was conducted for each alternative to determine the feasibility of each
option.
6.1.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – STEEL STRUCTURE

The first alternative is a complete steel structure. The proposed tower is 6 meters tall with a 2 meter
square platform and base. All steel members are 2.5x2.5x1/4 steel L-shaped angles that are 2 meters long.
Each member is pre-cut and drilled by a local metal shop in Shell, and transported to the site. The tower
will sustain a maximum loading of 5,000 kg and meets the wind and seismic codes provided in UBC
1997.
Figure 10: Steel Tower Design
21
6.1.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – TIMBER STRUCTURE
The second design is a tower constructed of local hard wood available in the jungle. It uses 8m long
hardwood posts that have a cross section of 23x23cm. The cross pieces and platform members are 18x18
cm. The top platform has an area of 25 square meters. The wooden tower requires a greater construction
time and effort, and does not have the lifespan of the steel structure. Steel connection plates willbe used
to brace the structure and aid in fastening the members together. The plates are 6 mm thick and willbe cut
and pre-drilled in Shell prior to being transported to the site. They will be connected using ½” diameter
lag bolts.
Figure 11: Wood Tower Design
22
6.2 TANK ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives were considered for storage on top of the tower. The tank size is limited to the
maximum internal size of the aircraft used for transportation to the villages. The two options were solid
plastic tanks available in Shell, or collapsible bladder tanks from the United States.
6.2.1 550L PLASTIC INDELTRO TANK

HCJB currently use 550L plastic tanks in their designs. The tanks are the largest solid tanks that can fit in
the plane to be transported to the village. The tanks are produced locally in Ecuador and are of durable
plastic with a sealed cover. A minimum of six tanks would be required to meet the capacity demands at
Iniayua. The cost of each tank is $100 from the supplier in Quito, Ecuador.
Figure 12: 550L Water Tanksvi
6.2.2 5000L COLLAPSIBLE TANK

The second alternatives for tanks are collapsible tanks sold by Storage Tank Solutions in the United
States. The tanks are available in 3000L, 5000L or 10,000L capacities and are wire mesh frames with a
thermoplastic liner. The cost of the collapsible tank is $900-$1000 depending on size. The tanks would
have to be purchased in the United States and shipped to Ecuador.
Figure 13: Open 5000 Liter Tankvii
23
6.3 DESIGN SELECTION PROCESS
A decision matrix was employed to compare alternatives based on the project objectives. Each of the
objectives was given an importance weighting and the alternatives were assigned a number (with 10 being
the best) on the ability of that alternative to meet the specific objective. Durability and cost had the
highest weightings of 25% each due to the importance of the system lasting for many years and
minimizing the total project cost. Resource stewardship was weighted as 20% due to the importance of
using locally available and sustainable materials. Storage capacity was weighted at 15%, as long asthe
minimum capacity is met, the total capacity can be reduced to minimize cost. Table 1 displays the
decision matrix used.
Table 1: Decision Matrix used to Compare Alternatives
The collapsible tanks have a larger capacity than the plastic tanks, but are less durable due to their
flexible, thinner material. The wood towers are larger so can support larger tanks which yield a greater
storage capacity, and they are less expensive than the steel towers. The wood towers also make better use
of the local materials. The draw backs to the wood towers compared to steel are that they are more
complicated to construct and are less resistant to weather and termites.
A wood tower with eight plastics tanks was chosen for the final design. The decision matrix calculated the
steel and wood towers were almost equal when paired with the solid plastic tanks. After submitting and
discussing the preliminary designs of the steel and wood towers with Alfredo, the team determined that a
steel construction would not be a wise use of resources, both financially and environmentally. Wood is
inexpensive, readily available onsite, and is a renewable resource. The steel is expensive, would require
fabrication work in Shell, and would incur substantial costs for transportation to the villages.
24
7 TRIP SUMMARY
This January, the three members of Water2Ecuador had the opportunity to travel to Ecuador to meet with
the HCJB engineers and to collect data at both Iniayua and Washintsa. The trip lasted from January 21 to
January 31 with five of the days spent in the two villages located in the Amazon Basin region of
Ecuador. The team was able to gain a greater understanding of the context of the project and collect site
specific data for the designs.
The first two days involved meeting with Alex and Alfredo Leon, the team’s HCJB contacts in Ecuador.
The team presented and discussed the feasibility and shortcoming of the preliminary designs and what
changes were required. The team then flew to Iniayua in a small 6 seater plane. Iniayua currently hasa
distribution system, but the water tower is on the verge of collapse and the tanks regularly run dry.
The team analyzed the water distribution network in Iniayua. Data was taken on the solar panels and
pumps. Using a multimeter, the team measured the voltage and current coming from the solar panels
throughout the day. The team concluded that the spring produced more than the required amount of water
and that the pump was operating efficiently. The water shortages are due to the inadequate capacityof the
tanks on the tower. It was determined that a new tower was required with capacity of at least 3300liters.
Figure 14: Josiah Measuring the Flow Rate at Iniayua
25
The team then flew to Washintsa, a community without any water system at all. The team studied the
water source and conducted a complete land survey of the village and surrounding area using a total
station and a portable GPS unit. The team determined the best location for the tower and measured the
flow rates from the springs in the area as possible source locations for the solar pump. The team also
hiked to Santa Rosa, a nearby village, to inspect their water source.
Figure 15: Brett collecting survey data with the total station
Upon return to Shell, the team with Alex and Alfredo and discussed the project in further detail. The team
determined that they would design the new tower for Iniayua and the complete water distribution system
for Washintsa. The complete system would include the tower, solar panels, pump, and the piping network
to each house.
7.1 SURVEY DATA COLLECTION

The team used a total station and handheld GPS unit to produce a survey of Washintsa (Figure 15). Each
house and point of interest was marked and elevation data was collected. Upon their return to the States,
the team was able to use the information collected to create a detailed map of the village, providing
information on elevation, slopes, and distances between any points of interest. The collected data was
used extensively in designing and modeling the piping distribution system for the site.
26
8 DESIGN CALCULATIONS AND MODELING
8.1 TOWER CALCULATIONS

Tower calculations were conducted in accordance to the National Design Specifications for Wood
Construction using the Allowable Stress Design (ASD) method. Due to a lack of material properties for
the actual wood available at the sites, all calculations were conducted using the material properties of
red oak, a conservative representative for the hardwood available in Ecuador. The material properties of
red oak were taken from the 1999 NDS manual and are summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2: Red Oak Material Properties
Red Oak Strength Properties

Structural Grade-Wet Service Conditions
Design Values kPa psi
Bending Force Fb 9308 1350
Tension Parallel to Grain Ft 5516 800
Shear Parallel to Grain Fv 552 80
Compression perpendicular to grain Fc.per 5654 820
Compression parallel to grain Fc.par 5688 825
Modulus of Elasticity E 8,274,000
1,200,000
8.1.1 LOAD ON TOWER

The dead load on the structure is the total weight of water, tanks, roof structure, and decking on the
tower. The weight of water for six tanks, each with a capacity of 550 liters, and using a density of 1
kilogram/liter, yields a total of 3,300 kilograms. Two tanks are located on the second level of the tower
yielding an additional 1,100 kilogram load. The total weight of plastic tanks is 100 kilograms. The roof
structure includes 25 square meters of metal roofing and the posts and beams to support the roof. The
calculated load due to the roof is 713 kilograms and is transferred directly into the four columns through
lag bolt connections. The loads due to the decking, joists, and beams were calculated using a material
density of 740 kilograms per cubic meter with the section properties identified in the beam sizing
calculations in the following sections. The total dead load on the tower is 5,800 kilograms.
27
8.1.2 WIND LOAD
The wind loads were calculated in accordance with Section 1615 of the Uniform Building Code (UBC)
Volume 2, 1997. The design wind pressure is calculated using the equation provided in UBC Section
1620, shown below in Equation 2.
Equation 2: = ∗ ∗ ∗
“P = Design Wind Pressure

Ce= Combined height, exposure and gust factor coefficient
Cq= Pressure Coefficient for the structure
qs= Wind stagnation pressure at the standard height of 10 meters
Iw= Importance Factor”viii
An exposure category C was chosen to represent our sites. Category C is mainly flat land with strong
winds and minimal ground cover or other structures. The average wind speed used for the preliminary
calculations is 145 kilometers per hour with a 3 second gust wind. The wind speed was chosen based on
feedback from local pilots that fly into the villages. For an 8 meter tall tower, the Ce coefficient was
determined to be 1.19.ix
The pressure coefficient, Cq, taken from Table 16-H (UBC), has a value of 3.6 for an open frame tower
and 0.8 for the water tanks. The importance factor, Iw, is 1.0 from Table 16-K (UBC). The wind
stagnation pressure, qs, is given as 80 kilograms per square meter in Table 16-F (UBC).
Using Equation 2 and the above coefficients, design wind pressures were calculated for both the frame of
the tower and for the water tanks. The minimum design pressure requirement for the open frame is 435
kilogram per square meter. The minimum design pressure for the reservoir is 97 kilogram per square
meter. All wind loads are calculated normal to the projected surface area of the structure.
8.1.3 COLUMN DESIGN

The four columns were designed to meet allowable design capacities as calculated using select
adjustment factors in the ASD approach. Table 3 lists the adjustment factors relevant to compression
member column design. Design calculations were conducted in English units and converted to SI units.
28
Table 3: Column Design Adjustment Factors
Adjustment Factors
Load Duration Factor CD 1.0 for 10 year load duration
Wet Service Factor CM 1.0 for 19% MC or less
Temperature Factor Ct 1.0 for temperatures below 100 F
Size Factor CF 1.1 Table 4.4 supplement
Incising Factor Ci 1.0 for members not incised
Column Stability Factor CP 0.4 as calculated in 3.7.1
8.1.3.1 Column Buckling Length

The column was modeled as a fixed connection at the base and a pinned connection on top. The buckling
length factor for fixed-pinned is 0.7 which, multiplied by the actual length of 8 meters yields a final
buckling length of 5.6 meters.
The actual load on each column, taken as a quarter of the total tower load, is 15.4 kilo-newtons (kN).
The maximum compressive load capacity, P, of the 8 meter tall (un-braced) column with a square cross-
section of 530 square centimeters is 144 kN. This selection of a 23x23 centimeter column yields a factor
of safety of 9.3 for the compressive strength of each column.
The end grain bearing of each column, Pg, was calculated as 364 kN using the material bending force and
relevant adjustment factors. Because P<Pg, the column is controlled by stability and not end grain
bearing strength.
8.1.4 BEAM DESIGN

The two beams are 5 meters long and support the 6 joists running perpendicular to the beams. The
beams are support in the center by the K-bracing. The actual moment in the beam was calculated as
4,097 newton-meters (N-m). The allowable moment capacity of a 18x18 centimeter red oak beam with
an adjusted bending force of 9308 kilopascals is 8,720 N-m. The chosen 18 cm square beams yield a
factor of safety of 2.1 for moment capacity in the beam.
The actual maximum shear in the beam is 6.6 kN and the maximum shear capacity for the selected beam
is 15.5 kN, which yields a factor of safety of 2.4 for shear capacity. The maximum actual deflectionin
the beam is 0.4 centimeters at full capacity.
29
8.1.5 JOIST DESIGN
The six joists are spaced 1 meter apart and support the 5 centimeter thick decking. The selected joists
have a 20 cm depth and 10cm width for a total area of 200 square centimeters. The induced moment in
each joist is 5,831 N-m while the allowable moment capacity is 9,355 N-m, yielding a factor of safety of
1.6 at full storage capacity. The factor of safety for maximum shear in the joist is 2.7. Joist stability was
calculated by dividing the actual moment by the section modulus to yield a bending force in the beam. The
actual bending force is less than the adjusted allowable bending force so the joist is stable in bending.
8.1.6 CONNECTION DESIGN

The moment and shear forces were calculated throughout the tower structure. Moment forces
were calculated about the centroid, at each joint, and for each beam member. The shear forces parallel to
the grain for the connections between the columns and cross members were calculated and cross checked
with given design values provided by NDS. Each connection on the tower is braced by steelplates to
facilitate fastening of members and to add torsional strength to the joint. All plates areattached to each
member by ½’’ diameter lag screws. Bearing strength values for the lag screws were calculated to be
5.2x10 kilopascals for single shear two member connections.
Figure 16: Connection Plate
8.1.7 FOUNDATION DESIGN

The foundation was designed around strength criteria and settlement criteria. Strength criteria of
foundation design puts into consideration the total strength of soil against the vertical and lateral forces.
The settlement criteria investigates the footing’s ability to withstand lateral loads and the settlement of
soil under the foundation.
The soil was assumed to be made of clay and have a bearing capacity of 1.0 kg/cm2. The total dead load
on the tower is 6,000 kg. The wind has little effect on the structure of the tower. Even when the tanks are
empty, the strength loss due to wind is only 2 percent. Without accounting for seismic activity, the
foundation should be designed around the strength criteria of soil when the tanks are full and thereis no
wind. For this scenario, the minimum footing area would equal 0.4 square meters.
30
The worst-case foundational situation is during an earthquake. For the earthquake scenario, the
foundation needs to have a footing area of 0.6 square meters and go 1 meter deep into the soil.The
appendix shows all the strength and settlement calculations done for wind and earthquake loading.
8.2 COMPUTER SOFTWARE MODELING

The tower was modeled using the three-dimensional structural design program, StaadPro. The basic
principles of moment and shear capacities as well as compression and tension forces throughout the
structure were modeled and optimized using StaadPro. StaadPro also provided a second reference for
comparison of hand calculations. The model was especially helpful in comparing variations in the
tower cross braces to determine which configuration yielded the lowest moment forces at the
connections. Through StaadPro, the team was able to conclude that K-bracing provided maximum
strength and stability to the structure compared with the various other configurations.
Y
X
Z Load 3
Figure 17: Staad.Pro design with dead and live loads applied
31
8.3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM MODELING
The water distribution system was modeled using Epanet 2.0 software. With this software, the head
losses, pressures, demand, and flow rates were analyzed. The types of minor losses in the system are
tabulated in Table 4. These minor losses were added for every length of pipe in Epanet. The impactof
the minor losses on the Epanet model, however, was minimal.
Table 4: Minor Losses in Systemx
The demand for each household is 400 liters a day. The demand patterns in Figure 18 and Figure 19
show the time during the day when the villagers use the water. From observations made while in the
villages, the team determined that the greatest demand for water occurs in the morning and evening.
According to Figure 18 and Figure 19, the demand peaks at 8 am and 6 pm (where the demand rate is 4
times the average daily demand). At night time, it is assumed that no one uses water. HCJB requires a
distribution model that has a demand that peaks to at least three times the average flow. The model
demand patterns both meet the standards laid out in the HCJB design principles.
1200
1000
Flow Rate (L/hr)
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hr)
Figure 18: Washintsa Daily Water Demand Rate
32
2000
1800
1600
1400
Flow Rate (L/hr) 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (hr)
Figure 19: Iniayua Daily Water Demand Rate
8.3.1 SYSTEM PRESSURE

The tank elevation controls pressure throughout the system. According to HCJB design constraints, the
minimum pressure head at any node is 5 meters. Each tank has a depth of 1m resulting in a pressure
variation depending on the amount of water in the tanks. Since the pressure head only varies by
one meter, the average system pressure head of the village of Washintsa was set at 6.5 meters when
when the tanks are full. Increasing the elevation of the tanks decreases the flow rate of water from
the pump. Since the village of Iniayua has an elevation difference of 2 to 3 meters, HCJB requested a tower design
that is 8 meters tall. The average pressure head of the system in Iniayua is 9.5 meters. The lowest pressure head is 5
m, and the highest pressure is 15 meters.
As a result of the design constraints and a larger population, Iniayua is designed to have eight tanks
capable of holding 4,400 liters. Six tanks are placed on top of the tower at an elevation of 8 meters, and
two reserve tanks are located 2 meters below. When the top tanks run out, the bottom tanks will be used.
The pressure head coming from those tanks will be 2 meters less than the top tanks.
8.3.2 WEEKLY WEATHER ANALYSIS

Since the power output from the pump depends on solar energy, the Epanet model ran tests on the effects
of weekly weather patterns. Three different weekly weather patterns were tested using the sunny and
cloudy field data acquired. Figure 20 shows the type of weather patterns used in the analysis, and Figure
21 and Figure 22 show what flow rate to expect in those weather patterns.
33
Figure 20: Type of Weather Patterns
Figure 21: Washintsa Flow Rates
34
Figure 22: Iniayua Flow Rates
35
As expected, the rainy weather pattern puts the most stress on the system. Whenever two consecutive
cloudy days occur, the pump receives some but very little energy, and the distribution system drawsmost
of its water from what was stored in the tanks. Therefore, the addition of more tanks will keep thesystem
from getting drained.
For the village of Washintsa, during sunny weather the pump can add about 6,500 liters (12 tanks) of
water to the tanks, and it would take two cloudy days to drain that amount of water from the system.This
design would be considered the most efficient distribution system, and it is recommended for the village
of Washintsa where the tanks will be located on a hill. However, due to structural limitations in thetower
design in Iniayua, only 4,400 liters of storage capacity is available. Water shortage is expected tooccur
for this village after two days of consecutively cloudy weather.
36
9 FINAL DESIGN
The final water system incorporates the spring catchment, settling tank, pump and solar panels, storage
tower, and piping to each house. Designs were not conducted on the spring catchment and settling tank
because both have already been constructed by HCJB. The design for Iniayua includes a replacement
tower with increased pressure and capacity.
9.1 SPRING CATCHMENT

Underground spring catchments in both Washintsa and Iniayua have been constructed by HCJB. The
spring protection and catchment are constructed using a filter of gravel and stones incased ina geotextile
material. A perforated pipe collects the water from the filter bed and conducts the flow into the settling
tank. The catchment is sealed with concrete to prevent any contamination from outside sources as shown
in Figure 23.
Figure 23: Spring Catchment
9.2 SETTLING TANK

The settling tanks for both villages have also been constructed by HCJB. The tanks collect the flow
from the spring and provide settling capacity to further purify the water. Accurate spring flow
measurements can be taken from the overflow outlet on the sedimentation tank. The tanks are located at
a lower elevation than the ground water spring.
37
9.3 PUMP AND SOLAR PANELS
The pump selected by the team is the Grundfos SQF 2.5-2 solar powered pump. Two 80 Watt Grundfos
solar panels along with the electrical control box complete the pumping unit. Iniayua already has the
pump and panels installed at the settling tank. The pump for Washintsa should be protected by a
perforated PVC pipe and screen material to provide a barrier for sand entering the pump. The pumpis
submerged in the settling tank with the solar panels mounted above the tank.
9.4 TOWER
The tower for Iniayua is to be located at the same location as the previous tower. The total height of
the top platform is 8 meters with six 550 liter tanks located on top. Two overflow tanks are located on
the second level. Each tank is connected with a shut-off valve to each of the other tanks.
Figure 24: Water Tower Configuration for Iniayua
A tower is not required at Washintsa due to the nearby hill which provides adequate elevation for the
storage tanks. The design includes twelve 550 liter tanks installed on the hill. A low wooden platform is
required to provide ground protection for the tanks.
38
9.5 DISTRIBUTION
Water is gravity fed from the storage tanks to each household in the village. The main distribution pipe
sizes are 50 millimeter and branch into 32 millimeter pipes. Each home is connected to the main grid by
20 millimeter flexible hose. The pipes are buried 1 meter below the surface.
9.5.1 TAPS
Each home has a single tap located between the outdoor kitchen and the house. The tap is 1 m tall and is
constructed using an upright, concrete-filled 50mm PVC pipe. The water hose rises through the center of
the pipe with the tap and flow meter located on top as shown in Figure 25.
Figure 25: Water Tap
39
9.6 MATERIALS AND TRANSPORTATION
The Appendix shows all the materials that are needed in this project. The costs for each material are
provided by the team correspondent Alfredo Leon. Since Iniayua only needs a tower, the cost for that
project is significantly less than the cost of the Washintsa project.
In addition to buying materials for these two projects, the cost of transportation needs to be considered as
well. In order to bring these materials to the villages, small planes must be used. These planes have a cargo
area that is 1 meter wide, 0.8 meters tall, and 2 meters long. With this configuration, 181, 50mm diameter
and 409, 32mm diameter pipes can fit. All 32mm pipes can fit inside the 50mm pipes. The total weight of
all the pipes meets the weight limit of 350 kg. According to Table 6 in Appendix F, all the pipes can be cut
into 2 meter segments and shipped in one plane at a cost of $382.
Since the pipes are cut into 2 meter segments, connections must be bought. This almost doubles the cost
of the pipes. If a larger plane was used, it would help cut down the cost of pipes. The cost for pipesand
connectors are seen in the Table 6 in Appendix F.
9.7 MAINTENANCE
Another possible source of energy loss is dirty solar panels. Cleaning off the dirt from the panels could
increase the efficiency of the panels. One of the goals for the trip in January is to check the condition of
the solar panels and see if proper maintenance has been conducted.
The solar panels are rated based on a tilt angle of 20 degrees. Grundfos company headquarters is located
in Germany. Therefore, all solar panel testing was based on latitude of 20 degree north. The villages in
Ecuador are located near the equator. Therefore, the panels in the village of Iniayua were not tilted. This
lack of tilt, however, causes the panels to gather dirt. In order to maximize performance of the solar
panels, it is recommended that the village tilt its solar panels slightly in order to keep water and dust
from accumulating on its surface. Since the villages are located near the equator, a tilt of 20 degreesis
not needed.
40
10 B UDGET
10.1 T EAM BUDGET MANAGEMENT

The preliminary budget, shown in Table 5, was prepared by the team in September outlining the estimated
costs for the project. The team used a contingency factor of 20% to account for variations in travel and
accommodation costs. The preliminary budget showed a total of $4,400 was required. Outside funding
was sourced through local companies and donations, with Innotec providing a $3,000 grant towards the
Water 2 Ecuador project.
Table 5: Preliminary Budget
Water 2 Ecuador Preliminary Budget, September 2011

Projected Expenses
Flights between Grand Rapids and Quito $ 1,900
Travel within Ecuador $ 1,200
Food and Accommodation in Ecuador $ 230
Scale Model Construction $ 300
Contingency Factor 20%
Total Projected Expenses $ 4,400
The team was able to minimize expenses throughout the year and ended the year with a final project cost
of $4,097. The final expense list and budget are shown below in Table 6. Funding was provided
by Calvin Engineering, Innotec Corporation, and the individual team members.
Table 6: Final Budget
Water 2 Ecuador Final Budget, May 2011

Expenses Incurred
Flights between Grand Rapids and Quito $ 2,303
Travel within Ecuador $ 1,111
Food and Accommodation in Ecuador $ 383
Scale Model Construction $ 300
Total Expenses $ 4,097
41
10.2 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
During the trip down to Ecuador in January of 2012, the team went to several local hardware stores that
HCJB frequently uses for constructing these projects. The team contact, Alfredo Leon, provided the team
with an extensive list of materials that are frequently used in the water tower projects that they
constructed in the past. The team used this list to keep track of material costs. The length of pipe, amount
of connectors, adaptors, and tanks was calculated by the team. Using this data and the cost sheet, the cost
of all the materials was calculated.
Appendix F shows the list of materials used for these two villages. Alongside the list is the quantity and
price for each material. To construct the system in Washintsa, an estimated total of five flights are needed.
One flight will be needed to transport all the pipes. At least four other flights are needed to transport the
other construction materials including tanks, pumps, and solar panels. The team assumes that several 550
liter tanks can fit into on plane along with other equipment.
The village of Iniayua is scheduled to take four flights to gather all the material for tower construction.
The biggest reason why this project requires four trips is because the weight of all the cement used in the
foundation. The weight limit of the plane makes it impossible to transport all the cement in one trip that is
needed for this project.
Construction Budget
Iniayua Washintsa
Tower Materials 3,923.63
Transportation
$ 2,000.00
$
Transportation 1,600.00
Labor
$ 100.00
$
Labor 100.00
$
Distribution System 5,276.81 $
Pump 2,000.00
$
Solar Panels 3,000.00 $
Total Cost 5,623.63

Total$
Cost 12,376.81$
20% contingency 562.36
20%$Contingency 1,237.68
$
Total Budgeted Cost 6,200

$Total Budgeted Cost 13,600
$
Figure 26: Final construction cost for each system
42
11 CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the implementation of these systems will provide two specific communities with access to
clean and safe drinking water. The system design may also be used in further communities throughout
Ecuador with minimum changes to the design. The construction of the two systems is scheduled to take
place during the summer of 2012 by HCJB and the local community members.
11.1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Team 11 would like to thank the following people and companies for the advice and support provided
throughout the year.
Faculty Advisors:
Professor Wunder
Professor De Rooy
Industrial Consultant
Roger Lamer
HCJB Engineers
Alfredo Leon
Alex Leon
Funding
Innotec Corporation
43
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Detailed Component Description." Solar System Basics - How Solar Power Works!. Solar Online
Australia, n.d.
Web. 7 May 2012. <http://www.solaronline.com.au/solar_system_basics.html#answer3>.
Ecuador climate guide (2011, July 22). Retrieved December 8, 2011, from
<http://www.prestigepumps.co.uk/data/downloads/SQFlex%20Data%20Brochure.pdf>.
Edwards, Ken. Minor Loss Coefficients, Hazen-Williams Coefficients, and Surface Roughness. LMNO
Engineering, 1999. Web. 15 Apr. 2012. <http://www.lmnoeng.com/surface.htm>.
Epanet (2011, December 7). In Drinking water research. Retrieved December 8, 2011, from
http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/wswrd/dw/epanet.html
"Finding the Root Cause of Failure." Pumps and Systems. N.p., Apr. 2009. Web. 15 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.pump-zone.com/pumps/vertical-turbine-pumps/finding-the-root-cause-of-
failure.html>.
French, Samuel E. Introduction to Soil Mechanics and Shallow Foundations Design. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, 1989. N. pag. Print.
Grundfos data booklet: sqflex (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2011, from

<http://www.prestigepumps.co.uk/data/downloads/SQFlex%20Data%20Brochure.pdf>.
HCJB Global Hands- Clean Water Projects. HCJB Global Hands, 2007. Web. 9 Nov. 2011.
<http://water.hcjbglobal.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=31>.
"How Well Do Solar Panels Work in Cloudy Conditions." Frequently Asked Questions about Solar
Panels. SolarHome, n.d. Web. 7 May 2012. <http://www.solarhome.org/solarpanelsfaqs.html>.
Indeltro. N.p., 2010. Web. 9 May 2012. <http://indeltro.com/index.php>.
International Conference of Building Officials. 1997 Uniform Building Code. 4th ed. Vol. 2.
1997. 2.7-2.38. 3 vols. Print.
Mays, Larry W. Water Distribution Systems Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000. N. pag. Print.
National Design Specifications For Wood Construction. 1997th ed. N.p.: American Forest and Paper
Association, 1999. N. pag. Print.
Solar system basics - how solar power works! (2011). In Solar Online Australia. Retrieved
December 8, 2011, from http://www.solaronline.com.au/solar_system_basics.html
Storage tank solutions (n.d.). Retrieved December 8, 2011, from

http://www.storagetanksolutions.com/products.asp
Wood Handbook. USDA FOREST SERVICE, n.d. Web. 9 May 2012.

<http://www.hardwoodinfo.com/graphics/pdfs/Strength%20and%20Mechanical%20Properties.pdf>.
44
45
APPENDICES
A1
APPENDIX A:G ANTT CHART
A2
A3
A4
APPENDIX B:CALCULATIONS
1. TOWER LOAD CALCULATIONS

2. WIND LOAD CALCULATIONS
3. COLUMN DESIGN
4. BEAM DESIGN
5. JOIST DESIGN
6. CONNECTION DESIGN
7. FOUNDATION DESIGN
8. WATER HAMMER CALCULATIONS
9. EPANET TANK SIZE CALCULATIONS
A5
A6
A7
A8
A9
A10
A11
A12
A13
A14
A15
A16
A17
A18
A19
A20
A21
A22
A23
A24
A25
Figure 27
A26
Figure 28
A27
Figure 29
A28
Foundation Design
A29
A30
A31
A32
Figure 30: Water Hammer for HDPE
A33
A34
Figure 31: Water Hammer for PVC
Figure 32: PVC and HDPE Pressure Specifications
Due to low flow velocities and the acoustical nature of plastic pipes, the pressure from water hammer is
minimal. The material can handle the pressure without breaking.
A35
A36
A37
APPENDIX C:C OMPUTER MODELING
1. STAAD.PRO
2. EPANET
A38
Figure 33: Dead and Live Load Cases
A39
Staad Output for Joist Moment and Shear Design
Mz(kip-in)
60 60
40 40
20 20
8.2
39 37
5 10 1516.4
20 20
40 40
60 -52.9 60
Figure 34: Joist Mz (kip-in)
Fy(kip)
1.20 1.07 1.20
0.80 0.80
0.40 0.40
39 37
5 10 1516.4
0.40 0.40
0.80 0.80
1.20 -1.07 1.20
Figure 35: Joist Fy (kip)
A40
Staad Output for Beam Moment and Shear Design
Mz(kip-in)
40 40
32.4
20 20
0.565
20 35
0.5 1 1.51.64
20 20
40 40
Figure 36: Beam Mz (kip-in)

Fy(kip)
1.801.61 1.61 1.80
1.20 1.20
0.60 0.60
24 33
0.5 1 1.51.64
0.60 0.60
1.20 1.20
1.80 1.80
Figure 37: Beam Fy (kip)
Fx(kip)
0.975 0.975
1.00 1.00
0.50 0.50
20 35
0.5 1 1.51.64
0.50 0.50
1.00 1.00
Figure 38: Beam Fx (kip)
A41
Mz(kip-in)
6 6
4 4
2.61
2 2
8 6
7.66
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.513.1
2 2
4 4
-4.66
6 6
Figure 39: Column with wind load (Mz kip-in)
Fy(kip)
0.15 0.15
0.10 0.089 0.10
0.05 0.05
8 6
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5
13.1
0.05 0.05
0.10 0.10
0.15 0.15
-0.149
Figure 40: Column with wind load (Fy kip)
Fx(kip)
1.801.73 1.73 1.80
1.20 1.20
0.60 0.60
8 6
2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5
13.1
0.60 0.60
1.20 1.20
1.80 1.80
Figure 41: Column with wind load (Fx kip)
A42
Table 7: Tower Structural Analysis and Comparison
TOWER STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND COMPARISON
COMBINATION
DEAD LOAD CASE
LOAD CASE
StaadProCalculated Allowable StaadPro
TOP BEAMS
Mz (kip-in) 32.44 38.03 94.92 32.44
Fy (kip) 1.62 1.55 3.99 1.62
Fx (kip) 0.00 0.00 23.28 0.336
TOP JOISTS
Mz (kip-in) 52.9 54.64132.48 52.9
Fy (kip) 1.07 1.11 4.54 1.07
Fx (kip) 0 0 19 0
COLUMNS
Mz (kip-in) 0.07 - 94.92 4.65
Fx (kip) 3.81 3.34 20.26 2.75
A43
EPANET
Figure 42: Washintsa Piping Map

This is the Epanet map of Washintsa. Two tanks were used for sunny and cloudy flow. Rules were
made in to turn off and on the pumps during certain periods of the week.
A44
Figure 43: Iniayua Distribution Map
This is the Epanet map of Iniayua. Two tanks were used for sunny and cloudy flow. Rules were made
in to turn off and on the pumps during certain periods of the week.
A45
Epanet Tank Results
Washintsa Seven Day 6,600 L Tank Volume for

Dry Weather
7000
6000
5000
Volume (L)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Time (hr)
Figure 44: Washintsa Dry Weather Tanks

Graph shows how much water is stored in the tanks in Washintsa for a week of mostly sunny weather.
The demand for the village is met, and overflow during mid-day is expected.
A46
Mediocre Weather
7000
6000
5000
Volume (L)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Time (hr)
Figure 45: Washintsa Mediocre Weather Tanks

Graph shows how much water is stored in the tank during mediocre weather. Demand is met, and
overflow still occurs.
A47
Rainy
7000
6000
5000
Volume (L)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Time (hr)
Figure 46: Washintsa Rainy Weather Tanks

Graph shows how much water is stored in the tanks during rainy weather. System is almost completely
drained after two days of consecutively cloudy weather. All demand is met.
A48
Iniayua Seven Day 4,400 L Tank Volume
for Dry Weather
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
Volume (L)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Time (hr)
Figure 47: Iniayua Dry Weather Tanks

Graph shows the volume of water stored in the tanks in Iniayua during sunny weather. All demand is met,
and overflow occurs slightly during the middle of the day
A49
for Mediocre Weather
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
Volume (L)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Time (hr)
Figure 48: Iniayua Mediocre Weather Tanks

Graph shows the volume of water in the tanks in Iniayua during mediocre weather. Demand is mostly
met. Only brief periods of no flow conditions.
A50
for Rainy Weather
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
Volume (L)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Time (hr)
Figure 49: Iniayua Rainy Weather Tanks

Graph shows the volume of water in the tanks in Iniayua during rainy weather. System experiences low-
flow conditions during stretches of cloudy weather.
A51
APPENDIX D: PRODUCT AND MATERIAL
SPECIFICATIONS
1. GRUNDFOSPUMP SPECIFICATIONS
2. INDELTRO TANK SPECIFICATIONS
3. RED OAK PROPERTIES
A52
Figure 50: Pump Curve
A53
SQF 2.5-2
Figure 51: Pump Curve SQF 2.5-2

Table 8: Pump Dimensions
SQF 2.5-2 and SQF 5A-6 were both analyzed. The dimensions are highlighted in the Grundfos table
above.
A54
Table 9: Pump Electrical System
SQF 2.5-2 and SQF 5A-6 were both analyzed. The electrical data for these two pumps are highlighted in
the table above. The max power for the SQF 2.5-2 is 900 watts, and the max power for the SQF 5A-6 is
1400 watts.
Table 10: Pump Motor
A55
Figure 52: SQF Performance Range
The SQFlex Solar performance range is based on solar radiation on a tilted surface (tilt angle of 20°),
HT = 6 kWh/m2 per day, ambient temperature of +30°C, and 20° northern latitude.
The solar panel system that was tested in Iniayua was not tilted, had an ambient temperature over
30°C, and located below the Equator.
The measured wattage was a little over 200 Watts at peak hour. Curve B shows the curve of peak wattage
of 200 Watts. At 10 meter head, the expected flow would be about 15
. The village was designed
around ten hours of peak sunlight. This means that a peak flow of
is expected. This
flow rate is close to the observed flow rate of !
measured from Iniayua’s tanks.
A56
INDELTRO TANK SPECIFICATIONS
Figure 53: 550L Tank Dimensions
RED OAK PROPERTIES

Table 11: Wood Properties
A57
APPENDIX E: CAD MODELING
1. AutoCad Washintsa Layout (By Alfredo Leon)

AutoCad Tower Drawing 1
2.
3. AutoCad Tower Drawing 2
4. AutoCad Tower Drawing 3
5. AutoCad Catchment Drawing
6. AutoCad Tap Drawing
7. AutoCad Sedimentation Tank Drawing
AutoCad Foundation Drawing
8.
AutoCad Connection Drawing
9.
10.Inventor Renderings
11.Washintsa 3-D AutoCad Renderings
A58
A59
A60
A61
A62
A63
A64
A65
A66
A67
Inventor Renderings:
Figure 54 Tower Side View
A68
Figure 55 Tower Side View
Figure 56 Tower Connections for Middle Corners
Figure 57 Tower Connections for Top and Bottom K-Braces
A69
Figure 58 Tank Arrangement on Inventor Model
Figure 59 Side view of Tower in AutoCAD from Inventor Output
A70
Figure 60 Side View of Tower in AutoCAD from Inventor Output
Washintsa 3-D AutoCad Renderings
Figure 61 Washintsa Pumping Station Location
Figure 62 Washintsa Spigot Locations
A71
Figure 63 Washintsa Tank Location
A72
APPENDIX F
1. Washintsa Cost Sheet
2. Iniayua Cost Sheet
A73
Washintsa Construction Cost
Table 12 Pipe Construction
A74
Washintsa Cost Sheet
Table 13 Washintsa Material Costs
A75
A76
Iniayua Cost Sheet
Table 14 Iniayua Material Costs
A77
Appendix G: Survey Data on Washintsa
and Iniayua
A78
END NOTES
Figure 38 Plane Survey Data
A79

FINAL FINAL (For Website)

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

FINAL FINAL (For Website)

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Multilizer PDF Translator Free version - translation is limited to ~ 3 pages per translation.

Travis Befus, Josías Dobson, Brett Nicholson

© 2012 Travis Befus, Josías Dobson, Brett Nicholson y Calvin College

1 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. ii

2 Table of Figures .................................................................................................................................... v

3 Table of Tables .................................................................................................................................... vi

1.1 Background ................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1.2 Washintsa .............................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Team 11 ........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.2.1 Travis Befus .......................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.2 Josiah Dobson ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.2.3 Brett Nicholson ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.3 Problem Statement ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.4 Project Description........................................................................................................................ 5

1.4.1 Stage One .............................................................................................................................. 5

1.4.2 Stage Two ............................................................................................................................. 5

1.4.3 Stage Three ........................................................................................................................... 6

2 Design Objectives ................................................................................................................................. 7

2.1 Integrating Quality and Constraints .............................................................................................. 7

3 Design Norms ....................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Stewardship ................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Transparency ................................................................................................................................. 9

3.3 Cultural Appropriateness .............................................................................................................. 9

4 Tower Design Requirements and Constraints ..................................................................................... 11

4.1 Functional Requirements of Tower............................................................................................. 11

4.2 Design Requirements of Tower .................................................................................................. 11

5 Distribution System Design Requirements and Constraints ............................................................... 13

5.1 Hydraulic Variables .................................................................................................................... 13

5.2 Pump ........................................................................................................................................... 14

5.3 Solar Panels................................................................................................................................. 16

5.3.1 Cloudy weather ................................................................................................................... 17

5.4 Tank Storage ............................................................................................................................... 17

5.5 Designing for Village Growth..................................................................................................... 18

5.6 Flow Rates .................................................................................................................................. 19

6 Design Alternatives ............................................................................................................................. 21

6.1 Tower Alternatives...................................................................................................................... 21

6.1.1 Alternative 1 – Steel Structure ............................................................................................ 21

6.1.2 Alternative 2 – Timber Structure ........................................................................................ 22

6.2 Tank Alternatives ........................................................................................................................ 23

6.2.1 550L Plastic Indeltro Tank .................................................................................................. 23

6.2.2 5000L Collapsible Tank ...................................................................................................... 23

6.3 Design Selection Process ............................................................................................................ 24

7 Trip Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 25

7.1 Survey Data Collection ............................................................................................................... 26

8 Design Calculations and Modeling ..................................................................................................... 27

8.1 Tower Calculations ..................................................................................................................... 27

8.1.1 Load on Tower .................................................................................................................... 27

8.1.2 Wind Load .......................................................................................................................... 28

8.1.3 Column Design ................................................................................................................... 28

8.1.4 Beam Design ....................................................................................................................... 29

8.1.5 Joist Design ......................................................................................................................... 30

8.1.7 Foundation Design .............................................................................................................. 30

8.2 Computer Software Modeling ..................................................................................................... 31

8.3 Distribution System Modeling .................................................................................................... 32

8.3.1 System Pressure .................................................................................................................. 33

8.3.2 Weekly Weather Analysis ................................................................................................... 33

9 Final Design ........................................................................................................................................ 37

9.1 Spring Catchment........................................................................................................................ 37

9.2 Settling Tank ............................................................................................................................... 37

9.3 Pump and Solar Panels................................................................................................................ 38

9.4 Tower .......................................................................................................................................... 38

9.5 Distribution ................................................................................................................................. 39

9.5.1 Taps ..................................................................................................................................... 39