Post on 02-Jun-2018
transcript
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
1/42
Technology,
DifferentiatorsFlow Monitoring (Uniqueness)
Session 7-1
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
2/42
Monitoring Gives the Big Picture
Flow Monitoring Cost
C.I.P. Cost
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
3/42
What are Sewer Improvement Drivers?
Regulatory Compliance
Hydraulic Overloading
Sewer Backup
Overflows Pump/Treatment Impacts
Low Level of Service
Maintenance / Failure
Community
Eminent Growth
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
4/42
What is the Value of Monitoring?
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
5/42
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
6/42
The Law of the Vital Few
Peaking Factor
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
L117
L100
L031
L043
L057
L006
L008
L104B*
L025
L028
L029
L026
L023
L034
L118
L111
L122
L063
L125
L012
L007
L010
L058
L004R
L002
L109
L114
L004
L108
L036
L003
L009
L001
L062
L120
L113
L126
L110
L007R
L018
L107
L124
L059
L112
L102
L035
L037
L014
L103
L105
L006R
L010R*
L050
L015
L055
L002R
L005
L119
L008R*
L044
L101
L032
L116
L021
L106
L005R
L003R
L009R*
L123
Plant peaking 10.45
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
7/42
Establish Priorities
Basin 25
Defect (gpd)Cumulative
(gpd)
Defect
($)Cumulative
($)
53 052A Inflow Cleanout 3,557 3,557 $175 $175 0.0087 Inflow Pick Holes 10,685 14,242 $125 $300 0.0064 63 Inflow Downspouts 14,400 28,642 $200 $500 0.01
63 62 Inflow Storm Cross Connection 120,571 149,213 $3,000 $3,500 0.02
122A 118 Inflow Storm Cross Connection 122,400 271,613 $4,000 $7,500 0.03
24 22A Inflow Parallel Connection 73,397 345,010 $5,000 $12,500 0.07
9 Inflow Cover Missing Bolts 1,440 346,450 $125 $12,625 0.1024 23 Inflow Cleanout 2,131 348,581 $175 $12,800 0.103 2 Inflow Main Line Defect 4,320 352,901 $4,000 $16,800 0.9065 64 Inflow Cracked Manhole Wall 1,440 354,341 $2,000 $18,800 1.405 Inflow Cover Missing Bolts 72 354,413 $125 $18,925 1.7053 Inflow MH Rim Leak 72 354,485 $125 $19,050 1.7075 73 Inflow Main Line Defect 2,160 356,645 $4,000 $23,050 1.9061 60 Inflow Lateral Defects 475 357,120 $1,200 $24,250 2.5086 85 Infilt Joint, Cracked 720 357,840 $2,750 $27,000 3.80
073A 73 Infilt Service Connection Defect 216 358,056 $2,750 $29,750 12.7056 55 Infilt Pipe w/ Circular Crack 144 358,200 $2,750 $32,500 19.1045 44 Infilt Joints With Infiltration 58 358,258 $2,032 $34,532 35.30
085A 42 Infilt Joints With Infiltration 14 358,272 $2,008 $36,540 139.40073A 73 Maint. Roots - 358,272 $2,750 $39,290 1000.00
44 43 Struct Pipe w/ Longitudinal Crack - 358,272 $2,750 $42,040 1000.00
44 43 Struct Pipe, Broken - 358,272 $3,250 $45,290 1000.00
Priority
Ranking
I/I Removal Repair CostsU/S
Manhole
D/S
ManholeType Source
Item Est. Capital Cost($ Million)1/
Pipeline Improvements 17.78
Peak Flow Storage Facilities 95.24
Basin I/I Reduction 14.52
Total 127.54
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
8/42
Monitoring Aids O&M Effort
Line Break Bypass Repaired Bypass/Repair
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
9/42
Monitoring Key for Asset Management
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
10/42
The 3Ds of Flow Monitoring?
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
11/42
Cost of Flow Monitoring
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
12/42
The Savings of Doing it Right
SSES
Rehabilitation
Construction
Method Cost Comparison
$100 $200$50
$1.50$2.50
$15.00$25.00
$150.00 $250.00
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
13/42
Joplin
Asset Value
1,500,000$200
$300,000,000
l.f. collection system
/ ft replacement cost
replacement value
x
Population = 50,000
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
14/42
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
15/42
Joplin
Method
10x Rates
Method Cost
SSES $2.50 $3,750,000
Rehab $25.00 $37,500,000
New Construction $250.00 $375,000,000
Population 50,000 1,500,000 l.f.
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
16/42
Misleading Conclusion
attenuated flows
WWTP
100% of system bad
Hydraulic Performance
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
17/42
WWTP
One basin worse than the other
Hydraulic Performance
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
18/42
WWTP
Priority Basins Identified
26% I/I
12% I/I18% I/I
38% I/I
20% I/I
Hydraulic Performance
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
19/42
Average Basin Sizes
Agency / LocationNo. of
Meters
Collection
System Size
Average
Basin Size
Hugo, OK 10 159,780 15,978
Hot Springs, AR 65 1,067,610 16,425
Palestine, TX 23 405,000 17,609
Hurst, TX 24 572,760 23,865Tulsa, OK (Haikey Creek) 32 782,113 24,441
McKinney, TX 60 1,632,804 27,213
Southlake, TX 20 546,499 27,325
Beaumont, TX 68 1,972,654 29,010
Richardson, TX 24 736,380 30,683
Dallas, TX (Joes Creek) 95 2,947,050 31,022
League City, TX 40 1,272,840 31,821
Grand Prairie, TX 46 1,500,000 32,609
Brownsville, TX 58 1,918,847 33,084
Plano, TX 24 809,328 33,722
Irving, TX 36 1,324,212 36,784
Highland Park, TX 12 442,200 36,850
Lancaster, TX 15 556,455 37,097
Houston, TX 98 3,750,000 38,265
Ada, OK 13 504,300 38,792
Haltom City, TX 33 1,312,020 39,758
Round Rock, TX 38 1,569,960 41,315
Average 30,651
Agency / Location No. ofMeters CollectionSystem Size AverageBasin Size
Norman, OK (Master Plan) 44 2,994,975 68,068
Fayetteville, AR (Master Plan) 32 2,236,800 69,900
Arlington, TX (Master Plan) 120 8,745,900 72,883
Fort Smith, AR (CAO) 32 2,353,104 73,535
Little Rock, AR (SECAP) 69 5,400,000 78,261
Fort Worth, TX (Master Plan) 50 4,029,600 80,592
Austin, TX (Onion Creek) 22 1,947,195 88,509
Longview, TX (Master Plan) 23 2,196,072 95,481
Midland, TX (Master Plan) 32 3,076,137 96,129
San Antonio, TX (Leon Creek) 32 3,120,000 97,500
Balt imore City, MD ( Interceptors) 114 11,859,990 104,035
Average 84,081
Inflow / Infiltration
Master Plan
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
20/42
Short Term Flow Monitoring:
Tactical system snapshot
Temporary Monitoring
Short duration (1 wk4 mo.)
Targets specific area and time
Benefits Isolate & identifies problem areas
I/I Ranking
Identify capacity restrictions Where & what else is required
and . . . what is Not
Strategic long-term trend
Permanent Monitoring
Long duration (12 mo +)
Targets Sewersheds and Seasons
Purpose CIP Planning
Model Calibration
System Management Tool
Rehab / Renewal Effectiveness
Billing
Basin sizes 20,000 - 40,000 l.f. Basin sizes 80,000 - 120,000 l.f.
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
21/42
Basin Size Impacts Spending
Average Basin Size
120,000 l.f.
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
22/42
Higher Resolution Reveals Problems
8.9 % Basin
Basin Size Average = 28,000 l.f.
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
23/42
Higher Resolution Monitoring Saves
Size 160,000 LF
SSES ~ $400,000Rehab ~ $4.0 MMNew Con. ~ $40 MM
Size 296,000 LF
SSES ~ $740,000Rehab ~ $7.4 MMNew Con. ~ $74 MM
10 X Table
SSES $2.50
Rehab $25.00
New Construction $250.00
Spending reduced nearly 50%
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
24/42
What does Flow Monitoring Costs?
1% of Improvement Costs
$10 per capita (temp and perm)
Rules of thumb
Size of System 30 ft / capita
Rehab Cost $1,000 / capita
# Temp Meters 1 / 1,000 people Temp cost $100 / day / meter
# Perm Meters 1 / 2,000 people
Perm cost per day $75 / day / meter
Budgetary
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
25/42
Differentiation of Services
Ei ht F d t l
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
26/42
Eight Fundamentals
of Successful Flow Monitoring
Desirable Monitoring Sites
Equipment Selection
Dimensions and GeometryI nstallation Proficiency
Calibrations
Alarming and Data Review FrequencyTimely Service and Maintenance
Engineering Analysis and Data Interpretation
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
27/42
High Groundwater Infiltration
(indirect inflow)
Hydrograph Fundamentals
FLOWR
ATE
TIME
INCH
ES
Base infiltration
Wastewater production
Rain
Direct Inflow
A R l ti hi Q lit i d fi d b it
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
28/42
A Relationships Quality is defined by its
Quantity
Qcontinuity= A x V
DV
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
29/42
Flow Monitoring Configuration
Ultrasonic Depth
VelocityPressure Depth
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
30/42
Selecting the Right Equipment
Pressure Transducer Ultrasonic
Doppler Velocity
Depth is the most Important Value
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
31/42
Depth Accuracy Creates Uncertainty
Pressure Depth
0.5% of Full Scale (10')Error = 0.6 Inches
Ultrasonic Depth
Error = 0.125 Inches
1"
2"
3"
6 GPM
13
24
39
52
UltrasonicDepth
Pressure
Depth
8 pipe
0.6 / 2 = 30%
Depth error
39 / 13 = 300%
Quantity range of error
Correlation from Point Reading to
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
32/42
Correlation from Point Reading to
Average Velocity is Vital
Non-contact
Velocity
Flo-DarISCO
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
33/42
Whats the Cost of Bad Data?
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
34/42
Raw versus Calibrated Results
Peak Difference = 15 mgd
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
35/42
Raw
Adjustments Critical to Flow Rate
Peak Flow (unadjusted)
Peak Flow (adjusted)1.5 MGD 30%
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
36/42
Flow MonitoringImpacts / Risk
Option 1increase Capacity / Line / Storage30 mgd
Option 2find and fix I/I source
Wet Weather Hydrograph
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
30.00
Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Monday
Date / Time
FlowRate(mgd
0.00
0.30
0.60
0.90
1.20
1.50
1.80
2.10
2.40
2.70
3.00
Rainf
all(in)
Wet Weather Flow (MGD)
Dry Weather Flow (MGD)
Rain Fall (in)
Legend:
Site L117
11/23/09 23:00 11/17/09 0:00
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
37/42
Inflow Source Identified
Site LR 117
42
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
38/42
Depth Accuracy Creates I/I Uncertainty
z
1"
2"
3"
6 GPM13
24
3952
UltrasonicDepth
PressureDepth
8 pipe
1"
2"
3"
6 GPM13
2439
52
Ultrasonic
Error 0.1
8 pipe Conclusions:
5213= 39 gpm >> Infiltration
2439= -15 gpm >> Exfiltration ?
Pressure
Error = 0.6
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
39/42
Unique Offerings
Fit-for-purpose Inventory On-line DataClient Portal
Daily Data Collection
Daily Automated Data Quality Surveillance
Weekly Data Reviews
Auto Performance alarms alerts
Service within 24 hrs
Guaranteed 95% Uptime
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
40/42
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
41/42
All Pressure Sensors Drift
8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value
42/42
Compare Raw vs Final Flow Rate
Raw
Final
Difference of 600,000 gpd
75% Overstated