Life‐cycle energy analysis of performance‐ versus age‐based pipe replacement schedules

Prosser, Monica; Speight, Vanessa; Filion, Y. R.

doi:10.5942/jawwa.2013.105.0157

Cited by 25 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To yield robust results in statistical analysis, this paper required a benchmarking dataset representative of the wide variety of characteristics such as configuration, pipe conditions and age profile, found in different water distribution systems. Eighteen distribution networks, therefore, were selected from different areas in the states of Kentucky and Ohio in the United States as well as the province of Ontario in Canada [15][16][17]. The network models in Ohio and Ontario are those utilized by corresponding municipalities while Kentucky models comprise a database developed from GIS files obtained from the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority [15].…”

Section: Application Of Multivariate Statistical Analyses In Large Wdssmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To assess how simplified, common-practice rehabilitation plans would perform from an energy efficiency standpoint, the pipe replacement plan for the leaky ensemble proposed by Prosser et al [16] was compared to the proposed approach in this paper. The approach proposed by Prosser et al [16] considers thresholds of 25 breaks per 100 km or 100 years of age in pipes as two alternatives to trigger replacement. Figure 10 shows the clusters of high and low-efficiency pipes as in Figure 9.…”

Section: Examining Current-practice Pipe Rehabilitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Figure 10 shows the clusters of high and low-efficiency pipes as in Figure 9. In addition, the pipes earmarked for replacement by Prosser et al [16] beyond the benchmark date (in this case, from 2013 to 2040) are shown as yellow triangles, while previously replaced pipes are shown as black diamonds. It can be seen that many of the pipes to be replaced do not overlap with the low efficiency cluster, as identified through PCA, nor do these pipes move towards high-efficiency pipes after replacement.…”

Section: Examining Current-practice Pipe Rehabilitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Identification of Factors That Influence Energy Performance in Water Distribution System Mains

Hashemi

Filion

Speight

2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper aims at identifying paramount hydraulic factors in energy dynamics of water mains, using Principal Components Analysis (PCA). The proposed method is applied to two large ensembles of leaky and non-leaky pipes comprising over 40,000 pipes selected from 18 North American water distribution systems to guarantee the versatility of pipe characteristics and statistical significance of the explored patterns. PCA mono-plots indicate energy metrics such as Net Energy Efficiency, Energy Lost to Friction and Energy Lost to Leakage serve better in identification of low from high efficiency pipes. In addition, PCA mono-plots and bi-plots reveal relative importance of hydraulic parameters and that average flow rate, hydraulic proximity to major components and average unit headloss can have more tangible effects on energy dynamics of pipes compared to leakage and average pressure. Some factors such as elevation, diameter and C HW are not as influential as expected in distinguishing high-efficiency from low-efficiency pipes. Further, a comparison between the approach used in this paper and a simplified common-practice replacement strategy points out the difference energy considerations can make, if included in a bigger asset management landscape.

show abstract

Section: Application Of Multivariate Statistical Analyses In Large Wdssmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examining Current-practice Pipe Rehabilitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Examining Current-practice Pipe Rehabilitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification of Factors That Influence Energy Performance in Water Distribution System Mains

Hashemi

Filion

Speight

2018

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The case study system of Figure currently experiences a leakage rate of about 65 million liters per day (MLD), or 13% of a total system supply of about 500 MLD. With no pipe replacement, this system is projected to reach a leakage rate of 22.5% (112.5 MLD) by the year 2070 and this increase in leakage equates to an additional 2.5 million kWh per year in pumping energy . In 2010, the utility recorded 531 bursts that required intervention.…”

Section: Examples Of Innovation In the Water Industrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovation in the water industry: barriers and opportunities for US and UK utilities

Speight

2015

WIREs Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water utilities face a variety of challenges in meeting future demands under climate uncertainty, addressing aging infrastructure, ensuring water quality, and reducing energy use. The agility of the utility to implement innovative solutions to these challenges depends upon a variety of factors including utility governance and culture, regulatory environment, condition and performance of water infrastructure, and funding mechanisms for system improvements. The consequences of failing to meet these challenges could include environmental degradation, public health risks, and reductions in the level of service customers have come to expect, all at a highly elevated price. Two different types of water utilities are compared in this context: privately owned companies (using UK water companies as examples) and publicly owned utilities (using US municipal utilities as examples). Examples of innovation in the water industry, in the US and UK as well as globally, provide insight into the key barriers and opportunities for change. The successful drivers of innovation in the water industry are shown to include: a supportive culture at the water utility; a regulatory regime that allows or even promotes innovation; the financial ability to undertake research and implement improvements; and crucially, the backing of the public. Ultimately, neither the municipal nor the private model is perfect but the best elements of these could be combined as the basis for an innovative water utility of the future. © 2015 The Author. WIREs Water published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. How to cite this article:WIREs Water 2015, 2:301-313. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1082 INTRODUCTIONG lobal challenges related to water availability, aging infrastructure, ensuring water quality, and energy use reduction will require innovative solutions. Yet, the water sector is considered conservative and risk averse. This paper examines innovation in the water industry from the perspective of a water systems engineer with more than 20 years of experience in developing strategic plans for water utilities, working both in the US and the UK. Two different types of * Correspondence to: v.speight@sheffield.ac.uk water utilities are compared here: privately owned companies (using UK water companies as examples) and publicly owned utilities (using US municipal utilities as examples).Both types of water utilities face similar challenges, with assets that are reaching or have already reached the end of their useful service life and now require replacement or upgrading at a significant cost. To evaluate the potential for innovation and the barriers to achieving change, it is important to consider a variety of factors including water utility governance and culture, regulatory environment, condition and performance of water infrastructure, and funding of system improvements. Examples of innovation in the water industry, in the US and the UK as well as globally, provide insight into the key motivations for change. Ultimately, neither the municipal nor the Focus Articlewires.wiley.com...

show abstract

“…Water utility managers are facing a large water infrastructure funding deficit, which poses a challenge to continued delivery of safe drinking water in North American water distribution systems (Roshani & Filion , Mirza ). Given the backlog of aging and deteriorated pipes that require rehabilitation, the resulting loss of capacity and high leakage rates are partly responsible for high energy costs and drinking water quality issues (Prosser et al , Lambert et al , Kleiner et al , Sharp & Walski ). Under pressure to address the deficiencies in their water distribution networks as cost‐effectively as possible, water utilities would benefit from understanding which water mains have a low energy performance (Scanlan & Filion , Wong et al , Filion ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Examining the Energy Performance Associated With Typical Pipe Unit Head Loss Thresholds

2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The energy performance of water mains is rarely used as a criterion for pipe rehabilitation decisions, yet there is a need to identify the worst-performing pipes to target investment wisely. This study links pipe characteristics with energy performance to understand how traditional pipe replacement thresholds perform in terms of energy. A cross-correlation analysis between pipe characteristics and pipe energy performance metrics, using a benchmarking data set of more than 20,000 water mains from 17 distribution systems, showed that unit head loss is closely related to net energy efficiency and the energy lost to friction (ELTF) in pipes, along with flow. Under average flow conditions, 3.2% of the pipes exceeded 3 m/km (ft/1,000 ft) of unit head loss, with 1.1% exceeding the more stringent 10 m/km threshold. Over 90% of pipes have a unit head loss below 1 m/km, which corresponds to an ELTF of 1.9%.

show abstract

Life‐cycle energy analysis of performance‐ versus age‐based pipe replacement schedules

Cited by 25 publications

References 16 publications

Identification of Factors That Influence Energy Performance in Water Distribution System Mains

Identification of Factors That Influence Energy Performance in Water Distribution System Mains

Innovation in the water industry: barriers and opportunities for US and UK utilities

Examining the Energy Performance Associated With Typical Pipe Unit Head Loss Thresholds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About