Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Reliability Simulation of Water Distribution Systems Single

Reliability Simulation of Water Distribution Systems Single

Ratings: (0)|Views: 97|Likes:
Published by bryesanggalang

More info:

Published by: bryesanggalang on Jan 19, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/10/2010

pdf

text

original

 
Reliability simulation of water distribution systems – singleand multiquality
Avi Ostfeld
a,*
, Dimitri Kogan
b
, Uri Shamir
a
a
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Israel Institute of Technology, Technion, Haifa 32000, Israel 
b
Chip Express Ltd., Matam, Israel 
Received 31 January 2001; received in revised form 4 July 2001; accepted 28 August 2001
Abstract
An application of stochastic simulation for the reliability analysis of single and multiquality water distribution systems (MWDS)is formulated and demonstrated. MWDS refers to systems in which waters of different qualities are taken from sources, possiblytreated, mixed in the system, and supplied as a blend. The stochastic simulation framework was cast in a reliability analysis program(RAP), based on EPANET, and quantifying three reliability measures: the fraction of delivered volume (FDV), the fraction of delivered demand (FDD), and the fraction of delivered quality (FDQ). RAP is demonstrated on two example applications: a simpleillustrative, and a more ‘‘real-life’’ complex one. The results quantify the reliability of the systems and provide lower bounds for thereliability measures adopted.
Ó
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Analysis; EPANET; Multiquality; Networks; Reliability; Software; Water distribution systems
1. Introduction
A water distribution system is an interconnectedcollection of sources, pipes, and hydraulic control ele-ments (e.g. pumps, valves, regulators, tanks) deliveringwater to consumers in prescribed quantities and at de-sired pressures. Such systems are often described interms of a graph, with links representing the pipes, andnodes representing connections between pipes, hydrauliccontrol elements, consumers, and sources. The behaviorof a water distribution system is governed by:1. physical laws that describe the flow relationships inthe pipes and hydraulic control elements,2. consumer demand, and3. system layout.Reliability analysis of a water distribution system isconcerned with measuring its ability to meet consumers’demands in terms of quantity and quality, under normaland emergency conditions. The required water quanti-ties and qualities are defined in terms of the flows to besupplied within given ranges of pressures and concen-trations (e.g. residual chlorine, salinity). As such, waterdistribution systems play a vital role in preserving andproviding a desirable life quality to the public, of whichthe reliability of supply is a major component.The question: ‘‘Is a system reliable?’’ is usually un-derstood and easy to answer, while the questions ‘‘Is itreliable enough?’’ or ‘‘What is its reliability level?’’ arenot straightforward, as they require both the quantifi-cation and calculation of reliability measures.Thus, traditionally, reliability is defined by heuristicguidelines, like ensuring two alternative paths to eachconsumer node from at least one source, or having allpipe diameters greater than a minimum prescribed va-lue. By using such guidelines it is implicitly assumed thatreliability will be assured, but the level of reliabilityprovided is not quantified or measured. As a result, onlylimited confidence can be placed on such rules, as reli-ability is not considered explicitly.In recent years there has been a growing interest insimulation approaches (e.g. Bao & Mays, 1990; Wagner,Shamir, & Marks, 1988a; Wagner, Shamir, & Marks,1988b), with more emphasis put on explicit incorpora-tion of reliability in the design and operation phases(e.g. Ostfeld & Shamir, 1996).The quality of the water supplied is a growingconcern, and more frequently ‘‘water’’ is no longer
Urban Water 4 (2002) 53–61www.elsevier.com/locate/urbwat
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +972-4-829-2782; fax: +972-4-822-8898.
E-mail addresses:
ostfeld@tx.technion.ac.il (A. Ostfeld), ko-gand@chipx.co.il (D. Kogan), shamir@tx.technion.ac.il (U. Shamir).1462-0758/02/$ - see front matter
Ó
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S1462-0758(01)00055-3
 
considered a single commodity; water distribution sys-tems are becoming multi-commodity systems. Waters of different qualities are taken from sources, possiblytreated, mixed in the system, and supplied as a blend.Such systems are termed multiquality water distributionsystems (MWDS), serving all three types of consumers:domestic, industrial, and agricultural.The concept of MWDS has been historically con-cerned with agricultural usage (e.g. Liang & Nahaji,1983; Sinai, Koch, & Farbman, 1985), primarily in aridregions (e.g. the Arava valley in southern Israel, Cohen,Shamir, & Sinai, 1999a; Cohen, Shamir, & Sinai, 1999b;Cohen, Shamir, & Sinai, 2000) where good water qualityis limited. Sources with different qualities are used in asingle distribution system, with blending at nodes, beingthe predominant mechanism for adjusting the quality of the water supplied to consumers’ needs.The objective of this paper is to formulate and dem-onstrate a stochastic simulation model for analyzing thereliability of single and MWDS. The model is termedreliability analysis program (RAP) and is based onEPANET (Rossman, 1994) an extended hydraulicmultiquality simulation model, upon which a stochasticsimulation framework was built for reliability analysis.The remainder of this paper consists of a brief liter-ature review on reliability analysis of water distributionsystems, a description of RAP, and two exampleapplications; a simple illustrative, and a more complexone.
2. Literature review
Reliability assessment of water distribution systemscan be classified in two main categories: topological, andhydraulic. Following is a brief review.
 2.1. Topological reliability
Topological reliability refers to the probability that agiven network is connected, given its components me-chanical reliabilities, i.e. the components probabilities toremain operational at any time.Wagner et al. (1988a) used reachability and connec-tivity to assess the reliability of a water distributionsystem, where reachability is defined as the probabilitythat a given demand node is connected to at least onesource, and connectivity as the probability that all de-mand nodes are connected to at least one source. Shamsi(1990), and Quimpo and Shamsi (1991) used node pairreliability (NPR), where the NPR measure is defined asthe probability that a specific source node is connectedto a specific demand node.Measures used within this category consider only theconnectivity between nodes (as in transportation ortelecommunication network reliability models), but donot take into account the level of service provided to theconsumers during a failure. The existence of a path be-tween a source and a consumer node in a water distri-bution system, in a non-failure mode or once a failurehas occurred does not guarantee a sufficient service. Thisis because of the new re-distribution of flow and pres-sures in the system once a failure has occurred, governedby a non-linear law between flow and head (i.e. theHazen Williams equation).
 2.2. Hydraulic reliability
Hydraulic reliability is the probability that a waterdistribution system can supply consumers demands overa specified time interval under specified conditions. Assuch, hydraulic reliability refers directly to the basicfunction of a water distribution system; conveyance of 
Nomenclature
 A
d
the actual flow (demand) supplied at aconsumer nodeFDD the fraction of delivered demandFDD
 j
the fraction of delivered demand at node
FDQ the fraction of delivered qualityFDQ
 j
the fraction of delivered quality at node
FDV the fraction of delivered volumeFDV
 j
the fraction of delivered volume at node
 I 
max
the prespecified number of simulationrepetitionsLRB lower reliability boundMTOR maximum time of repair (h)MWDS multiquality water distribution systems
number of simulation runsNN number of consumer nodes
the actual pressure at a node
 P 
min
a threshold minimum pressure level(
 P 
min
in RAP is 40 psi for all nodes)RAP reliability analysis program
 R
d
the requested consumer demand at a node
i
;
 j
the total duration at run
, at node
, forwhich the demand supplied is above thedemand factor
tq
i
;
 j
the total duration at run
, at node
, forwhich the concentration is below thethreshold concentration factor
duration of each run
V  
i
;
 j
the fraction of volume supplied toconsumer
at run
V  
T
the total requested volume of supply of consumer
at all runs
54
A. Ostfeld et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 53–61
 
desired water quantities at desired pressures to desiredlocations at desired times.The straightforward way to evaluate the hydraulicreliability of a system is through stochastic simulation(e.g. Bao & Mays, 1990; Fujiwara & Ganesharajah,1993; Su, Mays, Duan, & Lansey, 1987; Wagner et al.,1988b). A typical stochastic (Monte Carlo) simulationprocedure involves: generation of random componentfailure events; simulation of the system performance;and accumulation of performance statistics, with whichreliability measures are evaluated. The data collecteddepend on what reliability measures are adopted. Con-ceptually, any index can be calculated, as long as theappropriate data is available.Other references reviewing methods for assessing thereliability of water distribution systems were publishedby the ASCE task committee on risk and reliabilityanalysis of water distribution systems (Mays, 1989), andby Engelhardt, Skipworth, Savic, Saul, and Walters(2000).
3. The model
The previous section summarized two approachesfor assessing the reliability of water distribution sys-tems. Of these, in the current approach, stochasticsimulation was chosen for evaluating system reliability.The rationale for this was that calculating the reliabilityof a system involves stochastic events, which should beassessed by probabilistic methods. Probabilistic meth-ods implicitly or explicitly account for the likelihoodand effects of each system component redundancy, andso can be used for comparison and ranking of alter-native system designs and operation on the basis of reliability. Furthermore, once an initial assessment of the reliability of a water distribution system hasbeen performed analytically (i.e. using a ‘‘topological’’method); and alternative improvement options pro-posed, a stochastic simulation of these options can becarried to gain a better understanding of how theproposed alternative system are likely to behave underreal-life conditions.Three basic steps were implemented:1. the definition of reliability measures (‘‘single’’ and‘‘multiquality’’) reflecting chosen aspects of shortfallsas they relate to the consumers,2. inclusion of the stochastic nature of performance of each system component, and of the consumers de-mands, and3. coupling the previous two steps into a single frame-work that generates random events, runs EPANET,and evaluates, as a result, the system reliability ac-cording to the measures adopted in (1).These were incorporated in RAP (described below, andin Fig. 1).
3.1. RAP 
RAP involves running EPANET a prespecifiednumber of times (i.e. a number high enough so that notto impact the final simulation outcomes. In the examplesbelow 1000 times were usually satisfactory). For eachrun RAP repeats the following steps.
3.1.1. Random demand generation
Randomly generate, using a uniform probabilitydistribution for each of the consumer nodes and withina given domain of fluctuations around average demandrates, the flow pattern to be used for the current run(i.e. average demands+‘‘noise’’). Such a pattern repre-sents a typical demand cycle of 24 h (i.e. one realisa-tion of the demands at each of the nodes), as shown inFig. 2.
3.1.2. Random source concentration generation
Randomly generate, using a uniform probabilitydistribution within a given domain of concentrationfluctuations around the average concentrations in thesources, the concentrations to be used at each of thesources for the current simulation run (i.e. averagesource concentrations+noise).
3.1.3. An extended hydraulic multiquality simulation
Carry out a multiquality simulation run with the flowpattern as in Section 3.1.1, and the concentrations at thesources as in Section 3.1.2.
3.1.4. Generation of actual consumptions
Estimate, according to the resulting pressures at theconsumer nodes and an assumed relationship betweenthe pressure at a consumer node and its correspondingflow rate (Wagner et al., 1988a), the actual flows sup-plied at the consumer nodes:
 A
d
¼
 R
d
if 
P
 P 
min
;
 R
d
 ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 
 P 
min
 ffiffiffi 
 P 
if 
<
min
;
8<:
ð
1
Þ
where
A
d
is the actual flow (demand) supplied at aconsumer node;
R
d
is the requested consumer demand ata node;
is the actual pressure at a node;
min
is athreshold minimum pressure level (
 P 
min
in RAP is 40 psi(26.7 m) for all nodes).
3.1.5. Reliability calculation
The system can be in either operational or failuremode. The system is said to be in a ‘‘failure mode’’ if oneof its components (pipes, pumps, or sources) is out of service.Given the probability of system failure (i.e. a Ber-noulli distribution), a random generation of the systemmode is conducted.
A. Ostfeld et al. / Urban Water 4 (2002) 53–61
55

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->