SYSTEM DESIGN: AN OVERVIEW
Mark A. Ysusi Montgomery Watson Fresno, CA
The primary purpose of a water distribution system is to deliver water to the individual consumer in the required quantity and at sufficient pressure. Water distribution systems typically carry potable water to residences, institutions, and commercial and industrial establishments. Though a few municipalities have separate distribution systems, such as a high-pressure system for fire fighting or a recycled wastewater system for nonpotable uses, most municipal water distribution systems must be capable of providing water for potable uses and for nonpotable uses, such as fire suppression and irrigation of landscaping. The proper function of a water distribution system is critical to providing sufficient drinking water to consumers as well as providing sufficient water for fire protection. Because these systems must function properly, the principals of their planning, design, and construction need to be understood. This chapter focuses on the critical elements of planning and design of a water distribution system. The information presented primarily discusses typical municipal water distribution systems; however, the hydraulic and design principles presented can be easily modified for the planning and design of other types of pressure distribution systems, such as fire protection and recycled wastewater. 3.1.1 Overview
Municipal water systems typically consist of one or more sources of supply, appropriate treatment facilities, and a distribution system. Sources of supply include surface water, such as rivers or lakes; groundwater; and, in some instances, brackish or seawater. The information contained in this chapter is limited to the planning and design of distribution systems and does not address issues related to identifying and securing sources of supply or designing and constructing appropriate water treatment facilities. Water distribution
systems usually consist of a network of interconnected pipes to transport water to the consumer, storage reservoirs to provide for fluctuations in demand, and pumping facilities. 3.1.2 Definitions
Many of the frequently used terms in water distribution system planning and design are defined here. Average day demand. The total annual quantity of water production for an agency or municipality divided by 365. Maximum day demand. The highest water demand of the year during any 24-h period. Peak hour demand. The highest water demand of the year during any 1-h period. Peaking factors. The increase above average annual demand, experienced during a specified time period. Peaking factors are customarily used as multipliers of average day demand to express maximum day and peak hour demands. Distribution pipeline or main. A smaller diameter water distribution pipeline that serves a relatively small area. Water services to individual consumers are normally placed on distribution pipelines. Distribution system pipelines are normally between 150 and 400 mm (6-16 in.). Transmission pipeline or main. A larger-diameter pipeline, designed to transport larger quantities of water during peak demand-periods. Water services for small individual consumers are normally not placed on transmission pipelines. Transmission mains are normally pipelines larger than 400 mm (16 in.).
The basic question to be answered by the water distribution system planner/designer is, "How much water will my system be required to deliver and to where?" The answer to this question will require the acquisition of basic information about the community, including historical water usage, population trends, planned growth, topography, and existing system capabilities, to name just a few. This information can then be used to plan for logical extension of the existing system and to determine improvements necessary to provide sufficient water at appropriate pressure. 3.2.1 Water Demands
The first step in the design of a water distribution system is the determination of the quantity of water that will be required, with provision for the estimated requirements for the future. In terms of the total quantity, the water demand in a community is usually estimated on the basis of per capita demand. According to a study published by the U.S. Geological Survey, the average quantity of water withdrawn for public water supplies in 1990 was estimated to be about 397 L per day per capita (Lpdc) or 105 gal per day per capita (gpdc). The withdrawals by state are summarized in Table 3.1. The reported water usage shown in Table 3.1 illustrates a wide variation. Per capita water use varies from a low use in
TABLE 3.1 State
Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1990 L/per Capita/per day
379 299 568 401 556 549 265 295 678 420 435 450 704 341 288 250 326 265 469 220 397 250 291 560 466 326 488 435 806 269 284 511 450 254 326 189 322 420 235 254 288 307
gal/per Capita/per day
100 79 150 106 147 145 70 78 179 111 115 119 186 90 76 66 86 70 124 58 105 66 77 148 123 86 129 115 213 71 75 135 119 67 86 50 85 111 62 67 76 81
Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota
TABLE 3.1 State
(Continued) L/per Capita/per day gal/per Capita/per day
Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico Virgin Islands United States total Source: Solley et al. (1993).
322 541 825 303 284 522 280 197 617 182 87 397
85 143 218 80 75 138 74 52 163 48 23 105
Pennsylvania of just over 60 gpcd to over 200 gpcd in Nevada. These variations depend Dn geographic location, climate, size of the community, extent of industrialization, and other influencing factors unique to most communities. Because of these variations, the only reliable way to estimate future water demand is to study each community separately, determining existing water use characteristics and extrapolating future water demand using population trends. In terms of how the total water use is distributed within a community throughout the day, perhaps the best indicator is land use. In a metered community, the best way to determine water demand by land use is to examine actual water usage for the various types of land uses. The goal of examining actual water usage is to develop water "duties" for the various types of land uses that can be used for future planning. Water duties are normally developed for the following land uses: • Single-family residential (some communities have low, medium, and high-density zones) • Multifamily residential • Commercial (normally divided into office and retail categories) • Industrial (normally divided into light and heavy categories and separate categories for very high users • Public (normally divided into park, or open space, and schools) Water duties are normally expressed in gallons per acre per day. Table 3.2 shows typical water duties in the western United States. It should be noted that the definitions of land use terms like "low-density residential," "medium-density residential," and so on, will vary by community and should be examined carefully. Another method of distributing water demand is to examine the water usage for individual users. This is particularly the case when an individual customer constitutes a significant portion of the total system demand. Table 3.3 presents water use for many different establishments. Although the rates vary widely, they are useful in estimating total water use for individual users when no other data are available.
TABLE 3.2 Land Use
Typical Water Duties Low 400 900 2300 1300 2600 1100 1100 200 200 400 400 Water Duty, (gal/day/acre) High Average 3300 3800 12000 2900 6600 5100 5100 4700 4800 3100 2500 1670 2610 4160 2300 4160 2030 2040 1620 2270 2020 1700
Low-density residential Medium-density residential High-density residential Single-family residential Multifamily residential Office commercial Retail commercial Light industrial Heavy industrial Parks Schools
Source: Adapted from Montgomery Watson study of data of 28 western U.S. cities. Note: gal X 3.7854 = L.
Typical Rates of Water Use for Various Establishments Range of Flow L/person gal/person or unit/day or unit/day
User Airport, per passenger Assembly hall, per seat Bowling alley, per alley Camp Pioneer type Children's, central toilet and bath Day, no meals Luxury, private bath Labor Trailer with private toilet and bath, per unit (2 1/2 persons) Country clubs Resident type Transient type serving meals Dwelling unit, residential Apartment house on individual well Apartment house on public water supply, unmetered Boardinghouse Hotel
10-20 6-10 60-100
80-120 160-200 40-70 300-400 140-200 500-600
3-5 2-3 16-26
21-32 42-53 11-18 79-106 37-53 132-159
300-600 60-100 3(XMOO 300-500 150-220 200-400
79-159 16-26 79-106 79-132 40-58 53-106
TABLE 3.3 (Continued) Range of Flow L/person gal/person or unit/day or unit/day 120-200 400-600 200-600 400-800 40-100 32-53 106-159 53-159 106-211 11-26
User Lodging house and tourist home Motel Private dwelling on individual well or metered supply Private dwelling on public water supply, unmetered Factory, sanitary wastes, per shift Fairground (based on daily attendance) Institution Average type Hospital Office Picnic park, with flush toilets Restaurant (including toilet) Average Kitchen wastes only Short order Short order, paper service Bar and cocktail lounge Average type, per seat Average type 24 h, per seat Tavern, per seat Service area, per counter seat (toll road) Service area, per table seat (toll road) School Day, with cafeteria or lunchroom Day, with cafeteria and showers Boarding Self-service laundry, per machine Store First 7.5 m (« 25 ft) of frontage Each additional 7.5 m of frontage Swimming pool and beach, toilet and shower Theater Indoor, per seat, two showings per day Outdoor, including food stand, per car (3 1/3 persons)
Source: Adapted from Metcalf and Eddy (1979).
400-600 700-1200 40-60 20-40 25^0
106-159 185-317 11-16 5-11 7-11
10-20 10-20 4-8 8-12 120-180 160-220 60-100 1000-1600 600-800
40-60 60-80 200-400 1000-3000 1600-2000 1400-1600 40-60
3-5 3-5 1-2 2-3 32^8 42-58 16-26 264-^23 159-211
11-16 16-21 53-106 264-793 423-528 370-423 11-16
Planning and Design Criteria
To plan and design a water distribution system effectively, criteria must be developed and adopted against which the adequacy of the existing and planned system can be compared. Typical criteria elements include the following: • • • • • Supply Storage Fire demands Distribution system analysis Service pressures
188.8.131.52 Supply. In determining the adequacy of water supply facilities, the source of supply must be large enough to meet various water demand conditions and be able to meet at least a portion of normal demand during emergencies, such as power outages and disasters. At a minimum, the source of supply should be capable of meeting the maximum day system demand. It is not advisable to rely on storage to make up any shortfall in supply at maximum day demand. The fact that maximum day demand may occur several days consecutively must be considered by the system planner/designer. It is common for communities to provide a source of supply that meets the maximum day demand, with the additional supply to meet peak hour demand coming from storage. Some communities find it more economical to develop a source of supply that not only meets maximum day but also peak hour demand. It is also good practice to consider standby capability in the source of supply. If the system has been designed so the entire capacity of the supply is required to meet the maximum demand, any portion of the supply that is placed out of service due to malfunction or maintenance will result in a deficient supply. For example, a community that relies primarily on groundwater for its supply should, at a minimum, be able to meet its maximum day demand with at least one of its largest wells out of service. 184.108.40.206 Storage. The principal function of storage is to provide reserve supply for (1) operational equalization, (2) fire suppression reserves, and (3) emergency needs. Operational storage is directly related to the amount of water necessary to meet peak demands. The intent of operational storage is to make up the difference between the consumers' peak demands and the system's available supply. It is the amount of desirable stored water to regulate fluctuations in demand so that extreme variations will not be imposed on the source of supply. With operational storage, system pressures are typically improved and stabilized. The volume of operational storage required is a function of the diurnal demand fluctuation in a community and is commonly estimated at 25 percent of the total maximum day demand. Fire storage is typically the amount of stored water required to provide a specified fire flow for a specified duration. Both the specific fire flow and the specific time duration vary significantly by community. These values are normally established through the local fire marshall and are typically based on guidelines established by the Insurance Service Office, a nonprofit association of insurers that evaluate relative insurance risks in communities. Emergency storage is the volume of water recommended to meet demand during emergency situations, such as source of supply failures, major transmission main failures, pump failures, electrical power outages, or natural disasters. The amount of emergency storage included with a particular water system is an owner option, typically based on an assessment of risk and the desired degree of system dependability. In
TABLE 3.4 Land Use
Typical Fire Flow Requirements Fire Flow Requirements, gal/m* 500-2000 1500-3000 2500-5000 3500-10,000 2500-15,000
Single-family residential Multifamily residential Commercial Industrial Central business district Note: gal X 3.7854 = L.
considering emergency storage, it is not uncommon to evaluate providing significantly reduced supplies during emergencies. For example, it is not illogical to assume minimal demand during a natural disaster. 220.127.116.11 Fire demands. The rate of flow to be provided for fire flow is typically dependent on the land use and varies by community. The establishment of fire flow criteria should always be coordinated with the local fire marshall. Typical fire flow requirements are shown in Table 3.4. 18.104.22.168 Distribution system analysis. In evaluating an existing system or planning a proposed system, it is important to establish the criteria of operational scenarios against which the system will be compared. Any system can be shown to be inadequate if the established criteria are stringent enough. Most systems are quite capable of meeting the average day conditions. It is only when the system is stressed that deficiencies begin to surface. The degree to which the system will be realistically stressed is the crux of establishing distribution system analysis criteria. In evaluating a system, it is common to see how the system performs under the following scenarios: • Peak hour demand • Maximum day demand plus fire flow Evaluating the system at peak hour demand gives the designer a look at system-wide performance. Placing fire flows at different locations in the system during a "background" demand equivalent to maximum day demand will highlight isolated system deficiencies. Obviously, it is possible for fires to occur during peak hour demand, but since this simultaneous occurrence is more unlikely than for a fire to occur sometime during the maximum day demand, this is not usually considered to be an appropriate criterion for design of the system. 22.214.171.124 Service pressures. There are differences in the pressures customarily maintained in the distribution systems in various communities. It is necessary that the water pressure in a consumer's residence or place of business be neither too low nor too high. Low pressures, below 30 psi, cause annoying flow reductions when more than one water-using device is in service. High pressures may cause faucet's to leak, valve seats to wear out quickly, or hot water heater pressure relief valves to discharge. In addition, abnormally high pressures can result in water being wasted in system leaks. The Uniform Plumbing Code requires that water pressures not exceed 80 psi at service connections, unless the service is provided with a pressure-reducing device. Another pressure criterion, related to
TABLE 3.5 Condition
Typical Service Pressure Criteria Service Pressure Criteria (psi)
Maximum pressure Minimum pressure during maximum day Minimum pressure during peak hour Minimum pressure during fires Note: psi X 6.895 = kPa.
fire flows, commonly requires a minimum of 20 psi at the connecting fire hydrant used for fighting the fire. Table 3.5 presents typical service pressure criteria.
Water consumption changes with the seasons, the days of the week, and the hours of the day. Fluctuations are greater in (1) small than in large communities and (2) during short rather than during long periods of time. Variations in water consumption are usually expressed as ratios to the average day demand. These ratios are commonly called peaking coefficients. Peaking coefficients should be developed from actual consumption data for an individual community, but to assist the reader, Table 3.6 presents typical peaking coefficients.
Computer Models and System Modeling
Modeling water distribution systems with computers is a proved, effective, and reliable technology for simulating and analyzing system behavior under a wide range of hydraulic conditions. The network model is represented by a collection of pipe lengths interconnected in a specified topological configuration by node points, where water can enter and exit the system. Computer models utilize laws of conservation of mass and energy to determine pressure and flow distribution throughout the network. Conservation of mass dictates that for each node the algebraic sum of flows must equal zero. Conservation of energy requires that along each closed loop, the accumulated energy loss must be zero. These laws can be expressed as nonlinear algebraic equations in terms of either pressures (node formulation) or volumetric flow rates (loop and pipe formulation). The nonrmearity reflects the relationship between pipe flow rate and the pressure drop across its length. Due to the presence of nonlinearity in these equations, numerical solution methods are iterative. Initial estimated values of pressure or flow are repeatedly adjusted until the difference between two successive iterates is within an acceptable tolerance. Several numerical iterative solution techniques have been suggested, from which the Newtonian method is the most widely used. See chapter 9 for more details on modeling.
TABLE 3.6 Typical Peaking Coefficients U.S. Range Common Range 1.8-2.8:1 2.5-4.0:1
Ratio of Rates Maximum day: average day Peak hour: average day
126.96.36.199 History of computer models. Prior to computerization, tedious, and time-consuming manual calculations were required to solve networks for pressure and flow distribution. These calculations were carried out using the Hardy-Cross numerical method of analysis for determinate networks. Only simple pipeline systems consisting of a few loops were modeled and under limited conditions because of the laborious effort required to obtain a solution. The first advent of computers in network modeling was with electric analogues, followed by large mainframe digital computers and smaller microcomputers. The computational power of a laptop computer today is vastly superior to the original computing machines that would fill several floors in an office building and at a fraction of the cost. Many of the early computer models did not have interactive on-screen graphics, thus limiting the ability of engineers to develop and interpret model runs. The user interface was very rudimentary and often an afterthought. Input was either by punch cards or formatted American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) files created with a text editor. Errors were commonplace, and just getting a data file that would run could involve days, if not weeks, of effort, depending on the size and complexity of the network being modeled. Model output was usually a voluminous tabular listing of key network results. Interpretation of the results was time consuming and typically involved hand plotting of pressure contours on system maps. Because of the widespread use of microcomputers during the past two decades, network modeling has taken on new dimensions. Engineers today rely on computer models to solve a variety of hydraulic problems. The use of interactive on-screen graphics to enter and edit network data and to color code and display network maps, attributes, and analysis results has become commonplace in the water industry. This makes it much easier for the engineer to construct, calibrate, and manipulate the model and visualize what is happening in the network under various situations, such as noncompliance with system performance criteria. The engineer is now able to spend more time thinking and evaluating system improvements and less time flipping through voluminous pages of computer printouts, thus leading to improved operation and design recommendations. The new generation of computer models have greatly simplified the formidable task of collecting and organizing network data and comprehending massive results. 188.8.131.52 Software packages. Many of the software packages available offer additional capabilities beyond standard hydraulic modeling, such as water quality assessment (both conservative and reactive species), multiquality source blending, travel time determination, energy and power cost calculation, leakage and pressure management, fire flow modeling, surge (transient) analysis, system head curve generation, automated network calibration, real-time simulation, and network optimization. Some sophisticated models can even accommodate the full library of hydraulic network components including pressure-regulating valves, pressure-sustaining valves, pressure breaker valves, flow control valves, float valves, throttle control valves, fixed-and variable speed pumps, turbines, cylindrical and variable cross-sectional area tanks, variable head reservoirs, and multiple inlet/outlet tanks and reservoirs. Through their predictive capabilities, computer network models provide a powerful tool for making informed decisions to support many organizational programs and policies. Modeling is important for gaining a proper understanding of system dynamic behavior, training operators, optimizing the use of existing facilities, reducing operating costs, determining future facility requirements, and addressing water quality distribution issues. There is an abundance of network modeling software in the marketplace today. Some are free and others can be purchased at a nominal cost. Costs can vary significantly between models, depending on the range of the features and capabilities provided. The four major sources of computer models include consulting firms, commercial software
companies, universities, and government agencies. Many of the programs available from these sources have been on the market for several years and have established track records. Most of the recent computer models, however, provide very sophisticated and intuitive graphical user interfaces and results presentation environment, as well as direct linkages with information management systems, such as relational databases and geographic information systems. Table 3.7 lists the names, addresses, and phone numbers of network modeling software vendors, along with their primary modeling products. 184.108.40.206 Development of a system model. As was just indicated, the computerized tools available to the engineer today are impressive and powerful. Once appropriate software is selected, data must be then input to the software to develop a computer model of the water system under study. Input data include the physical attributes of the system, such as pipe sizes and lengths, topography, and reservoir and pump characteristics, as well as the anticipated nodal demands. Development of the nodal demands normally involves distributing the average day flow throughout the system in proportion to land use. This is commonly accomplished by determining a demand area for each node, measuring the area of each different land use within the demand area, multiplying the area of each land use within the demand area by its respective average day water duty (converted to gal/min or L/sec), and summing the water duties for each land use within the demand area and applying the sum at the node. In the past this effort required extensive mapping and determining the land use areas by planimeter or hand measurement. Today, with the advent of graphical information system software (GIS), the development of nodal demands is normally an activity involving computer-based mapping. The elements of the system, the demand areas, and the land uses are all mapped in separate layers in the GIS software. The GIS software capability of "polygon processing" intersects the different layers and automatically computes the landuse sums with the various demand areas. When the water duties are multiplied by their respective land use, the result is the average day system demand, proportioned to each node by land use. The water system computer model is then used to apply global peaking factors as described above.
PIPELINE PRELIMINARY DESIGN
The purpose of performing the water system planning tasks as outlined above is to develop a master plan for correcting system deficiencies and providing for future growth. Normally the system improvements are prioritized and a schedule or capital improvement program is developed based upon available (now or future) funding. As projects leave the advanced planning stage, the process of preliminary design begins. During preliminary design, the considerations of pipeline routing (alignment), subsurface conflicts, and rights-of-way are considered. 3.3.1 Alignment In deciding upon an appropriate alignment for a pipeline, important considerations include right-of-way (discussed further below), constructability, access for future maintenance, and separation from other utilities. Many communities adopt standardized locations for utility pipelines (such as that water lines will generally be located 15 ft north and east of the street centerline). Such standards complement alignment considerations.
Distribution System Modeling Software
Vendor Computer Modeling, Inc. CEDRA BOSS International Haestad Methods, Inc. USEPA Faast Software Kelix Software Systems MW Soft, Inc. Tahoe Designs Software Intergraph University of Kentucky Address 2121 Front Street 65 West Broad Street 6612 Mineral Point Road 37 Brookside Road 26 W. Martin Luther King Drive 3062 East Avenue 11814 Coursey Blvd., Avenue, Suite 220 City Cuyahoga Falls Rochester Madison Waterbury Cincinnati Livermore Baton Rouge Pasadena Truckee Huntsville Lexington NANTERRE Cedex Lacey Bexley, NSW 2217 Laval Wheaton Victoria Carlisle Laurel Logan Boca Raton
OH NY WI CT OH CA LA CA CA AL KY
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA
Zip Code 44221 14614 53705-4200 06708 45268 94550-4738 70816 91101 92162 35898 40506 92007 98503 H7L4S2 60187 V8W 2H7 17013 20707 84322-4100 33431-9868
Telephone (330) 929-7886 (716) 232-6998 1-800-488-4775 1-800-727-6555 (513) 569-7603 (510)455-8086 (504) 769-6785 (626)568-6868 (530) 582-1525 1-800-345-4856 (606) 257-3436 01133146147181 (360) 412-0702 612-9587-5384 (514) 629-8888 (630) 682-4700 (250) 385-0206 (717) 243-1900 (301)490-4515 (801) 797-2943 1-800-272-7737
Fax (330) 929-2756 (716)262-2042 (608) 258-9943 (203) 597-1488 (513) 569-7185 (510)455-8087
AQUA AVWater BOSS EMS CYBERNET EPANET FAAST FLOW NETWORK ANALYSIS H2ONET HYDRONET InWater KYPIPE PICCOLO PIPE-FLO PIPES RINCAD RJN CASS WORKS SDP Stoner Workstation TDHNET USU-NETWK WADISO — Water Distribution Systems: Simulation and Sizing Water Works WATERAVGRAPH WaterMax WATNET WATSYS
300 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 1200 P.O. Box 8128 One Madison Industrial Park Civil Engineering Software Center, University of Kentucky SAFEGE Consulting Engrs. P.O. Box 727 Pare de I1IIe, 15-27 rue du Port Engineered Software, Inc. 453 llntelco Loop Watercom Pty Ltd. 105 Queen Victoria Street CEDEGER 1417 rue Michelin RJN Computer Services, Inc. 200 W. Front Street Charles Howard & Assoc. Ltd. 852 Fort St. 2nd Floor Stoner Associates, Inc. P.O. Box 86 TDH Engineering 607 Ninth Street Utah State University Utah State University, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering Lewis Publishers - 1990 2000 Corporate Blvd. NW
(626) (530) (205) (606)
568-6619 582-8579 730-6109 257-8005
USA Australia Canada USA Canada USA USA USA USA
01133147247202 (360) 412-0672 612-9587-5384 (514) 382-3077 (630) 682-4754 (250) 385-7737 (717) 243-5564 (301) 490-4515 (801)750-1185 1-800-374-3401
Quebec IL BC PA MD UT
Syntex Systems Corporation Municipal Hydraulics Ltd. The Pitometer Associates WRc Expertware Dev. Corp.
800-1 188 West Georgia Street 2474 Pylades Drive RR3 20 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1530 8 Neshaminy Interplex, Suite 219 27 Linden Avenue
Vancouver Ladysmith Chicago Trevose Victoria
BC BC IL PA BC
Canada Canada USA USA Canada
V6E4A2 VOR2EO 60606 19053 V8V 4C9
(604) (250) (312) (215) (250)
688-8271 722-3810 236-5655 244-9972 384-5955
(604) 688-1286 (250) 722-3088 (312)580-2691 (215) 244-9977 (250) 383-1692
3.3.2 Subsurface Conflicts
A critical element of developing a proposed pipeline alignment is an evaluation of subsurface conflicts. To, evaluate subsurface conflicts properly, it will be necessary for the designer to identify the type, size, and accurate location of all other underground utilities along the proposed pipeline alignment. This information must be considered in the design and accurately placed on the project plans so that the contractor (or whoever is constructing the line) is completely aware of potential conflicts. It is good practice to thoroughly investigate potential utility conflicts. For example, it is not enough simply to determine that the proposed pipeline route will cross an electrical conduit. The exact location and dimensions of electrical conduits also need to be determined and the proposed water pipeline designed accordingly. What is shown on a utility company plat as a single line representing an electrical conduit may turn out to be a major electrical line with several conduits encased in concrete having a cross section 2 ft wide and 4 ft deep! Or, what is shown as a buried 3/4-inch telephone line may turn out to be a fiber-optic telecommunications cable that, if severed during construction, will result in exorbitant fines being levied by the communications utility. Another water pipeline alignment consideration is the lateral separation of the line from adjacent sanitary sewer lines. Many state and local health officials require a minimum of 10 ft of separation (out-to-out) between potable water and sanitary sewer lines.
The final location of a pipeline can be selected and construction begun only after appropriate rights-of-way are acquired. Adequate rights-of-way both for construction and for future access are necessary for a successful installation. Water lines are commonly located in streets and roadways dedicated to public use. On occasion, it is necessary to obtain rights-of-way for transmission-type pipelines across private lands. If this is the case, it is very important to properly evaluate the width of temporary easement that will be required during construction and the width of permanent easement that will be required for future access. If a pipeline is to be installed across private property, it is also very important for the entity that will own and maintain the pipeline to gain agreements that no permanent structures will be constructed within the permanent easements and to implement a program of monitoring construction on the private property to ensure that access to the pipeline is maintained. Otherwise, as the property changes hands in the future, the pipeline stands a good chance of becoming inaccessible.
The types of pipe and fittings commonly used for pressurized water distribution systems are discussed in this section. The types of pipeline materials are presented first and then factors effecting the types of materials selected by the designer are presented in Sec. 3.4.7. The emphasis throughout this section is on pipe 100 mm (4 in.) in diameter and larger. References to a standard or to a specification are given here in abbreviated form—code letters and numbers only, such as American National Standards Institute (ANSI) B36.10. Double designations, such as ANSI/AWWA CIl 5/A21.15, indicate that American Waterworks Association (AWWA) C115 is the same as ANSI A21.15. Most standards are revised periodically, so it is advisable for the designer to obtain the latest edition.