flow monitoring value

8/11/2019 Flow Monitoring Value

1/42

Technology,

DifferentiatorsFlow Monitoring (Uniqueness)

Session 7-1


2/42

Monitoring Gives the Big Picture

Flow Monitoring Cost

C.I.P. Cost


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


4/42

What is the Value of Monitoring?


5/42


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


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


8/42

Monitoring Aids O&M Effort

Line Break Bypass Repaired Bypass/Repair


9/42

Monitoring Key for Asset Management


10/42

The 3Ds of Flow Monitoring?


11/42

Cost of Flow Monitoring


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


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


14/42


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.


16/42

Misleading Conclusion

attenuated flows

WWTP

100% of system bad

Hydraulic Performance


17/42

WWTP

One basin worse than the other



18/42

WWTP

Priority Basins Identified

26% I/I

12% I/I18% I/I

38% I/I

20% I/I



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


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.


21/42

Basin Size Impacts Spending

Average Basin Size

120,000 l.f.


22/42

Higher Resolution Reveals Problems

8.9 % Basin

Basin Size Average = 28,000 l.f.


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%


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


25/42

Differentiation of Services

Ei ht F d t l


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


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


28/42

A Relationships Quality is defined by its

Quantity

Qcontinuity= A x V

DV


29/42

Flow Monitoring Configuration

Ultrasonic Depth

VelocityPressure Depth


30/42

Selecting the Right Equipment

Pressure Transducer Ultrasonic

Doppler Velocity

Depth is the most Important 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


32/42

Correlation from Point Reading to

Average Velocity is Vital

Non-contact

Velocity

Flo-DarISCO


33/42

Whats the Cost of Bad Data?


34/42

Raw versus Calibrated Results

Peak Difference = 15 mgd


35/42

Raw

Adjustments Critical to Flow Rate

Peak Flow (unadjusted)

Peak Flow (adjusted)1.5 MGD 30%


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


37/42

Inflow Source Identified

Site LR 117

42


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


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


40/42


41/42

All Pressure Sensors Drift


42/42

Compare Raw vs Final Flow Rate

Raw

Final

Difference of 600,000 gpd

75% Overstated

flow monitoring value

Documents