Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Copy of Pipeline Simulator

Created by Yuxin CHEN & Yongqing LIANG
by

Ahmed Usama

on 2 July 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Copy of Pipeline Simulator

Municipal Hydraulics Project
Technical Study
Cost Analysis
Conclusions & Decisions
Demand Estimation
1-Area Served
Created by Group 4
2- Population
3- Demand
ADD and MDD
ADD= Pop. x domestic demand/capita
MDD (Design Q)= 1.1x1.15xADD
UFW = 25% in future
= 8% in present
Well field Modeling
Ground Tank is modeled as a reservoir
For each Alternative we run 4 models:
1- Steady State Model (MDD, Future)
Pipe Dia., Pump required head,
check on: hydraulic gradient < 5m/km (Transmission lines)
< 10m/km (Network)
pressure at junctions (2~6 bars)
velocity range bet. ( 1~1.5 m/s) "recommended"
2- Steady State Model (MDD, Present)
3- EPS Model (ADD, Future)
Get the Elevated Tank's Volume
4- Steady State Model (Fire, ADD, Future)
Two fire scenarios have been established
fire demand = 60 l/s "residential area"
= 90 l/s "Industrial area"
according to ECP 102/2010
Check on the Hydraulic performance in present
Suggested Tank Positions
Position 1
Position 2
Position 2 is preferred as it shows better hydraulic performance for the same height, its cost also is less than position 1 due to topography.
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Comments
Fire Scenarios
Tank optimum volume = 5250 m3 "Alternative 1"
Tank optimum volume = 6125 m3 "Alternative 2"
`
Adding 60 l/s to the junctions with lowest pressure
J12 and J13
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Results
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Head loss Gradient
Head loss Gradient
Junctions' Pressure
Junctions' Pressure
Adding Industrial fire Demand (90 l/s) to J-1 and residential fire demand (60 l/s) to J-12
Results
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Head loss Gradient
Head loss Gradient
Junctions' Pressure
Junctions' Pressure
It is obvious that scenario 2 is more critical than scenario 1.
While running Scenario 2 for the first time we found that we must increase P-6 diameter from 200mm to 300mm, to follow the design criteria and ECP 102/2010 concerning min. pressure (2bars).
1- Steady State Model (MDD, Future)
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Total Annual Cost
Alternative 2
1619150 $
1692832 $
More Economical
Annual Cost
Pipe lines and fittings
including O&M
Tank
(Reservoir & Support Structure)
Wells
Pump Station
Power
Alternative 1 = 540465 $
Alternative 2 = 597179 $
Alternative 1 = 130085 $
Alternative 2 = 147052 $
Alternative 1 = 125000 $
Alternative 2 = 125000 $
Alternative 1 = 190033 $
Alternative 2 = 190033 $
Alternative 1 = 633568 $
Alternative 2 = 633568 $
Concerning hydraulic performance:
Alternative 2 is a little better as:
The max P=0.4 bar greater than alt.1
The mean P= 0.1 bar greater than alt.1
The min P= 0.4 bars greater than alt.1
It shows less head loss gradients.
Higher level of service in case of emergency (fire).
But alternative 1 hydraulic performance is still within the allowable range by the ECP 102/2010 and the design criteria. So, Alt.1 hydraulic performance is accepted.
Finally, we decide to start implementing Alternative 1
Full transcript