MIT OpenCourseWare

http://ocw.mit.edu

1.782 Environmental Engineering Masters of Engineering Project

Fall 2007 - Spring 2008

For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.
MAE LA REFUGEE CAMP
WATER SUPPLY

25 April 2008
Mary Harding, Navid Rahimi, and Katherine Vater
MIT - CEE
Master of Engineering
MAE LA REFUGEE CAMP
WATER SYSTEM

| Background and Overview

| Distribution System Modeling

| Distribution System Mapping

| Water Treatment
 MAE LA REFUGEE CAMP

Yunnan China
| Karen, Karenni, and
India
Mon refugees from
Myanmar (Burma)
Mandalay

Myanmar
| 45,000 people
Laos Hainan

Yangon Mae La refugee camp Vietnam

Thailand

Bangkok
Andama

Quy Nhon

Mergui
Archipelago Cambodia
Phnom Penh
Ho Chi
n

Gulf of Thailand
Se a

Minh City
(Saigon)

South China Sea

Songkhla

Malaysia

Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare.

WATER SUPPLY AND GEOGRAPHY

Mae Sot

Myanmar
Thailand Road

Spring 17
Spring 9
A Tank

B Tank
C Tank Spring 5
Christopher Tank

M Tank River
Pump T

Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare.

1 km

DRINKING WATER SUPPLY OVERVIEW

SP-10 SP-9
B Tank

C Tank Tim pump

station
A Tank

Christopher Tank
River
Christopher pump
station
Banana
pump
station

MOI Tank

MOI
pump station
 SPRING WATER SYSTEM OVERVIEW

Filter

Source

Storage Tap stands

MAE LA REFUGEE CAMP
WATER SYSTEM

| Background and Overview

| Distribution System Modeling

| Distribution System Mapping

| Water Treatment
WATER DISTRIBUTION MODELING

| Illustration of EPANET

| Model calibration

| Example analysis of system modifications

OVERALL EPANET SYSTEM

SAMPLE RESULTS
Pressures
Flows
 CALIBRATION OF TAP FLOW

Computed (LPM)

Observed (LPM)

Correlation: 0.61
 CALIBRATION OF PRESSURE

Computed (m)

Observed (m)

Correlation: 0.59

PRESSURE DISTRIBUTION AND LAYOUT

GEOGRAPHIAL COVERAGE: NEW TAPS

TANK LEVELS AT END OF DISTRIBUTION

3.5

2.5
Level (m)

1.5

0.5

0
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9
Hour of the morning

17T BT1 MOIT CHT1 CT

AT-Old S14Rings TBRings S67Rings S8Rings

Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare.

MAE LA REFUGEE CAMP
WATER SYSTEM

| Background and Overview

| Distribution System Modeling

| Distribution System Mapping

| Water Treatment
WATER DISTRIBUTION MAPPING

| Example visual output

| Geographical errors

| Results: Home distance to nearest tap stand

Under-service volume & time
DISTANCE OF HOMES TO NEAREST TAP

Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare.

SPRING 2 – LOW COVERAGE

Distance to Nearest Tap

0-25m
25-50m
50-75m
75-100m
>100m
Tap Stands

0 25 50 100
Meters

Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare.

ERROR ANALYSIS

| Previous AMI tap stand location data and corresponding

elevation error from DEM
| Mostly: 1-2m elevation change per 15m on land

| Closer to mountains: 10-15m change per 15m

HOME DISTANCE TO TAP STAND
HISTOGRAM

| Assumes everyone gets water from closest tap

| Nearly 50% of homes within 30-60m range

| Some large outliers with distances >200m (many in SP2

region)
 WATER CONSUMPTION AND TRAVEL
TIMES
| Trip travel times less than ~3 mins. Æ increased
consumption
60
Water consumption (lpcd)

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50

Return trip travel time (minutes)

Figure by MIT OpenCourseWare.

| If tap within 1.5 min walk or 115 meters

WELL 1998, Guidance manual on water supply and sanitation programmes, WEDC, Loughborough, UK.
WATER CONSUMPTION AND TRAVEL
TIMES

| 93% of homes have tap within 115 meters

| Excluding SP2 region, over 95% of homes

WATER VOLUME DISTRIBUTION

| Recommended minimum water consumption: 7.5

liters/capita/day (WHO)
| Assuming 6 people/home Æ 50 liters/home/day

| Use EPANET model results which provides flow

estimation for 88 of 129 viable tap stands
WATER VOLUME DISTRIBUTION

| 360 homes (7%) under-serviced

| 6 of 88 tap stands
TIME TO COLLECT 50 LITERS

| Compare to available collection time/home

| Based on taps/stand and population density

| Under-serviced: additional 180 homes

| Increase to 10% of homes (from 7% volume)
MAE LA REFUGEE CAMP
WATER SYSTEM

| Background and Overview

| Distribution System Modeling

| Distribution System Mapping

| Water Treatment
EXISTING WATER TREATMENT

| Disinfection by chlorination
y Effective chlorination requires low turbidity levels
y Treatment goal: Turbidity ≤ 10 NTU

| Horizontal-flow roughing filter at Spring 10

WATER TREATMENT OBJECTIVES

| Study effectiveness of existing filter

y Improve the filter

| Design a general filter for other springs

| Determine necessary maintenance

 2007 TURBIDITY AT SPRING 10

200

180

160

140

Turbidity [NTU]

120

100

80

60

40

20

10

J F M A M J J A S O N D
Month

S-10 Box A S-10 Tank

EXISTING FILTER AT SPRING 10

Internal Wall of Filter

INFLOW

Filter Plan View:

Potential Short-circuiting

OUTFLOW
JANUARY 2008 MODIFICATIONS

Baffle Addition to Internal

Walls of Filter

Baffles

INFLOW

Filter Plan View: New

Flow Path

OUTFLOW

 RELATIVE FLOW TEST RESULTS

110

100

29 min Baffles increased residence

time by three times.
90

80

Salinity [ppm]

70

94 min
60

50

40

30

20

10

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160

Time [minutes]

No Baffles Baffles
 TURBIDITY SAMPLING

Flow Scenario Co [NTU] Ce [NTU]

Dry season, clean filter 38 6

Dry season, dirty filter 30 14

Wet season simulation, clean

240 14
filter
 COEFFICIENT OF FILTRATION, Λ

Ce −λ L
E= =e
Co

Flow Scenario Co [NTU] Ce [NTU] Λ [m-1]

Dry season, clean filter 38 6 0.15

Dry season, dirty filter 30 14 0.06

Wet season simulation, clean filter 240 14 0.24

Wet season, dirty filter (extrapolation) -- -- 0.10

 ACHIEVING CE < 10 NTU

BY LENGTHENING FILTER

50

45

40

Effluent Turbidity [NTU]

35

30

25

20

15

10

0 5 10 12 15 20 24 25 30 35 36 40

Filter Length, L [m]

Dry Season, Clean Filter Dry Season, Dirty Filter Wet Season, Clean Filter Wet Season, Dirty Filter
CONCLUSIONS
| Spring 10 Filter Improvements
y Construct second filter
y Install outlet weirs

| General Filter Design

y Not recommendable

| Filter Maintenance
y Monitor turbidity
y Clean the filter based on monitoring
MAE LA REFUGEE CAMP
WATER SYSTEM

| Background and Overview

| Distribution System Modeling

| Distribution System Mapping

| Water Treatment
2007 FLOW VOLUME BY SPRING

8%
13% 2% SP-2
1% SP-4
SP-5
7% SP-6/7
14%
SP-8
SP-9
SP-10
SP-11
4%
SP-12/15
3% SP-14

26%
SP-17

17%
5%