2019
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-019-02206-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Wall Decay Coefficient Estimation in a Real-Life Drinking Water Distribution Network

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
4
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
4
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Wall reaction coefficient values for Polyethylene pipe obtained in this study varied between 0.041 and 0.059 h À1 . These values are greater than the calibrated wall decay coefficient estimated by Minaee et al (2019) in a reallife drinking water distribution network, which ranged from 0 to 0.021 h À1 . Comparing the results of both studies, it would be understood that kw reduces as diameter increases.…”
Section: Gsmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Wall reaction coefficient values for Polyethylene pipe obtained in this study varied between 0.041 and 0.059 h À1 . These values are greater than the calibrated wall decay coefficient estimated by Minaee et al (2019) in a reallife drinking water distribution network, which ranged from 0 to 0.021 h À1 . Comparing the results of both studies, it would be understood that kw reduces as diameter increases.…”
Section: Gsmentioning
confidence: 63%
“…Therefore, the current literature lacks examples of chlorine decay model applications to complex networks supplied by different sources with different water quality characteristics, as in typical cases of WDNs managed by water utilities. In addition, it has to be highlighted that chlorine decay models are generally based on rather complex approaches [21][22][23][24], the application of which requires detailed water quality parameters that may be hard to obtain for water utilities [25] even in the case of simple WDN layouts. Indeed, these depend on both water characteristics (e.g., water pH and temperature, affecting bulk reaction parameters) and pipe characteristics (i.e., material and age, affecting wall reaction parameters) and should be obtained for each individual network pipeline based on the results of laboratory tests [23,26].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The bulk decay is frequently the predominant chlorine decay mechanism (Kiéné, Lu, and Lévi 1998;Clark and Haught 2005). Chlorine decay in water networks is, thus, often modelled as the sum of the two mechanisms, bulk and wall decay (Minaee et al 2019a;Munavalli, Mohan Kumar, and Kulkarni 2009). Bulk decay depends on the amount and type of natural organic matter and inorganics in water, hence, water samples should be collected and laboratory decay-tests carried out for assessing decay kinetics, by means of the bottle tests (Powell et al 2000).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…According to Equation (1), the rate of reaction of chlorine at the pipe wall is always inversely related to the pipe diameter and can be limited by the rate of mass transfer of chlorine to the wall. The FO model has been used to describe chlorine wall decay in pipes of low reactivity materials such as cement lined ductile iron (Digiano and Zhang 2005), PVC and medium-density polyethylene (Hallam et al 2002) and asbestos cement (Minaee et al 2019a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%