Pressure management extends

infrastructure life and reduces

unnecessary energy costs

Julian Thornton
Allan Lambert
IWA Water Loss Task Force
 IWA WLTF Definition of
pressure management
The practice of managing system pressures to
the optimum levels of service - ensuring
sufficient and efficient supply to legitimate
uses while:
reducing unwanted demands or theft
eliminating transients and faulty level controls
eliminating variations due to changing head loss
reducing unnecessary or excess pressures
all of which cause the system to fail at high
frequencies with high volumes
Water 21 articles
The first place to start

P r e s s u re
M anagem ent

U n a v o id a b le
R eal Loss
Im p ro v e d
P ro a c tiv e
Leak E c o n o m ic
Leak
R e p a ir L e ve l
D e te c tio n
T im e R eal Loss

C u rr e n t A n n u a l R e a l
L o s s V o lu m e

In f ra s tr u c tu re
M anagem ent
Leaks occur at system weak spots
modulate to the weak spots

90%

10%
 Predicting pressure management
payback periods
Despite many success stories, it is still
necessary to prioritise and predict paybacks
on case-by-case basis
Predictions of changes in leak flow rates and
consumption are now quite reliable
using FAVAD N1 and N3 approach
Financial benefits of reduced break
frequency are generally much larger
but reliable prediction method is not yet available
FAVAD N2 approach is now known to be incorrect
a practical conceptual approach is now being tested
 Latest
Number of Assessed Average % Average
Pressure initial reduction %
Water Utility or Mains (M) or
Country Managed maximum in reduction
System Services (S)
Sectors in pressure maximum in new

pressure:
study (metres) pressure breaks
Brisbane 1 100 35% 28% M,S
60% M
Australia Gold Coast 10 60-90 50%
70% S
Yarra Valley 4 100 30% 28% M

breaks data
Bahamas New Providence 7 39 34% 40% M,S
Bosnia 59% M
Gracanica 3 50 20%
Herzegovin 72% S
58% M

analysis:
Caesb 2 70 33%
24% S
Sabesp ROP 1 40 30% 38% M
80% M
Sabesp MO 1 58 65%
29% S
Brazil 64% M
Sabesp MS 1 23 30%
64% S
50% M
SANASA 1 50 70%
50% S

112
30% M
Sanepar 7 45 30%
70% S
23% M
Canada Halifax 1 56 18%
23% S

Systems
50% M
Armenia 25 100 33%
50% S
Colombia
Palmira 5 80 75% 94% M,S
Bogot 2 55 30% 31% S
45% M

from 10
Cyprus Lemesos 7 52.5 32%
40% S
25% M
Bristol Water 21 62 39%
45% S
England
72% M
United Utilities 10 47.6 32%

countries
75% S
Torino 1 69 10% 45% M,S
Italy
Umbra 1 130 39% 71% M,S
USA American Water 1 199 36% 50% M
Total number of systems 112
Maximum 199 75% 94% All data
Minimum 23 10% 23% All data
Median 57 33.0% 50.0% All data
Average 71 38.0% 52.5% M&S together
Average 36.5% 48.8% Mains only
Average 37.1% 49.5% Services only
 Simple statistical approach

Break Frequency Factor (BFF) = slope of line

BFF = % reduction in break frequency/% reduction in pressure
BFF Average line = 1.4; Lower line = 0.7; Upper Line = 2.8

But can individual predictions be improved using a conceptual approach?

 Pressure and pipe failure
Consider the situation when new mains and services are laid,
they are designed to withstand existing system pressures
with a large factor of safety, so failure rate is low

FAILURE
RATE NEW
NEW PIPES,
PIPES,

GRAVITY
GRAVITY SYSTEM
SYSTEM

Operating range PRESSURE

 Pressure and pipe failure

If the new pipe system experiences surges or variations the

factor of safety is reduced, but the failure rate will remain quite low.

FAILURE
RATE NEW PIPES,

SYSTEM WITH SURGES

Operating range PRESSURE

 Pressure and pipe failure
As the pipes deteriorate through age (and possibly corrosion), and other
local and seasonal factors, the failure pressure gradually reduces until
at some point in time, burst frequency starts to increase significantly

ENT

N
ING

SIO
FAILURE

VEM
E
COMBINATION OF FACTORS

OAD
RATE

RO
TUR

MO

OR
C L
ERA
CAUSES INCREASED

ND

+C
FFI
OU
P
TEM

AGE
TRA
FAILURE RATE

GR
BOOM !!!

Operating range PRESSURE

 Reduce surges and variations
The first step in pressure management is to check for the presence
of surges or variations; if they exist, reduce the range and frequency of both

RES

ENT

N
DIN
ATU

SIO
FAILURE

VEM
RATE STEP 1: REDUCE SURGES

OA
PER

RRO
MO

C L
TEM

+ CO
ND

FFI
U
LOW

GRO

TRA

AGE
PRESSURE
 Reduce excess pressure
Next, identify if the stabilized pressures at the critical point are
higher than necessary; if so, reduce the excess
to avoid operating system at its failure pressure

RES

ENT

N
DIN
ATU

SIO
FAILURE

VEM
RATE STEP 2: REDUCE

OA
PER

RRO
MO
EXCESS PRESSURE

C L
TEM

+ CO
ND

FFI
U
LOW

GRO

TRA

AGE
Operating range PRESSURE
 What to expect?
If the current failure rate is comparatively high (red circle), then quite a
small % reduction in pressure (to the blue circle) may produce a large
reduction in burst frequency. But if the burst frequency is already quite
low (blue circle), further pressure reductions may not greatly reduce
the current burst frequency, but may extend infrastructure life

FAILURE
RATE

PRESSURE
 Testing the conceptual approach
This latest concept has so far been tested on data from
Halifax (Canada), Lemesos (Cyprus), and Wide Bay Water
(Australia)
Initial break frequencies are expressed as a multiple of
break frequencies used in the Unavoidable Annual Real
Losses (UARL) formula
13 mains breaks/100 km mains/year
3 service breaks/1000 conns/year (main to property line)
13 breaks/100 km of pipe/year (after property line)
If initial break frequency ratio is low (blue circle), %
reduction in breaks is expected to be zero or very small
If initial break frequency ratio is high (red point), %
reduction in breaks is expected to be significant
 Comparisons so far
Break
Mains or Initial Break
Utility Frequency
Services Frequency Ratio
Factor BFF
Mains 1 0
Wide Bay Water
Services 12 4
Mains 3 2.5
Halifax
Services 0.5 0
Mains 3 1.4
Lemesos
Services 11 1.3

In 2 cases where Initial Break Frequency Ratio was low (close to or less than
1, blue circle), no significant reduction in break frequency occurred (BFF =0)

In 4 cases where Initial Break Frequency Ratio was 3 or more (red circle),
significant reductions in break frequency (BFF 1.3 to 4 x % pressure reduction)

Research into individual case studies continues, with the objective of testing and
trying to improve predictions of reductions in break frequencies using this approach
 Philadelphia USA - case study

DMA 5 installed as part of AWWARF

2928 research project
25 KM of metallic mains
2850 metallic service connections
100% AMR coverage
All night consumption read using AMR
during test
PWD Installation
Saves an additional 0.15 MGD
and reduces break frequency!
PRV reduces influence of
upstream pump changes
 Kampung Merbau Sempak
SYABAS Malaysia case study
Flow and pressure profile
Proper installation and calibration
leads to reduced break frequency
 SABESP Sao Paulo Brazil
Case Study

83 kilometres of main
9,000 connections
36,000 population
Elevations of 725 metres to 761
metres above sea level
Pumped supply from a booster station
Field installation
 Critical point variation -
improved
30

25.1
25

20

17.0
15 to 22 m
PRESSURE (m)

6 mWc

15

10 11.0

6.2
5

0
12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00 0:00 4:00 8:00 12:00 16:00 20:00

TIME
 Santa Amaro summary
Valve diameter: 450 mm
Night time average pressure reduction:
25m to 15 m
Critical point pressure variation reduced 15
to 6 m
Volume savings: 40 l/sec
New breaks reduced by approximately
50%!
Project cost US $200,000
Annual estimated savings on volume alone
US$600,000
Project pay back 3 months!
 Summary
Pressure management works!
Reduces leak flow rates (predict using N1)
Reduces some parts of consumption (predict using N3)
Reduces unnecessary energy use
Reduces break frequency (prediction being developed)
Extends infrastructure life
If you would like to share an experience please contact
Julian Thornton thornton@water-audit.com
Allan Lambert allanlambert@leakssuite.com
Thank you