ewb project: - engineers without borderswiki.ewb-umn.org/images/b/ba/525december19th.doc · web...

Rev.03-2010

Document 525PRE-IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

CHAPTER: University of MinnesotaCOUNTRY: GuatemalaCOMMUNITY: SimajhuleuPROJECT: Uniting Water and PeopleTRAVEL DATES: March 11th to the 21st

PREPARED BYJohn Frieseke, Derrick Passe, Peter Glashagel, Manuel Orozco, Justin Konen, Adam Swierczek, Kris Langlie, Nate Flieschacker, Charles Vermance, David

Buck, Kathryn Klarich, Laura McDonald, Becca Pilkerton, Ryan Ballard, Taylor Hoffman, Alexandra Paidosh, Alistar McIntyre, Jamie Wilcox, Jordan

Klussendorf, Leigh Severson, Valerie Troutman

December 19h 2010

ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS-USAwww.ewb-usa.org

Post-Assessment Report Part 1 – Administrative Information 1.0 Contact Information

Name Email Phone ChapterProject Leads John

[email protected] 775

2295425UMN

President Lauren Butler

[email protected] 847 3457356

UMN

Mentor #1 Derrick Passe


MN

Mentor #2 Peter Glashagel


MN

Faculty Advisor (if applicable)

Tim LaPara


UMN

Health and Safety Officer

Charlie Vermace


UMN

Assistant Health and Safety Officer

Derrick Passe


MN

NGO/Community Contact

Elizabeth Howland

[email protected] Long Way Home

Education Lead Manuel Orozco


UMN

2.0 Travel History

Dates of Travel Assessment or Implementation

Description of Trip

January 5-12, 2008 Assessment Meet with Simajhuleu community. Discuss existing design for proposed water line. Explore alternative design options. Collect information

Document 525 - Pre-Implementation ReportUniversity of MinnesotaSimajhuleu, GuatemalaUniting Water and People

on community, topography, availability of water, water quality, soil stability, ...

July 9-17, 2008 Assessment Survey Simajhuleu residents about water usage. Gather additional technical data about the existing water distribution system.

Aug 23 –Sept, 2009 Implementation The construction of a 130,000L concrete rainwater cistern and supporting rainwater collection system for the school in Simajhuleu. Also training locals to be able to operate and maintain structures in future.

January 6-17, 2010 Assessment Investigation into possible solutions to the village-wide water problems with data collection of multiple forms. (e.g. survey)

May 19- June 2,2010

Assessment Continued data collection with regards to a solution forSimajhuleu’s water system. Began addressing alternatives analysis with the village to determine a best possible design to move forward with but were interrupted by Tropical Storm Agatha.

August 24 – Sept 3, 2010

Assessment Completion of intended discussions from previous assessment. Reached an agreement with local officials’ responsibilities for a future implementation. Surveyed potential construction sites and obstacles.

1.0 Travel Team

Name E-mail Phone Chapter Student or Professional

John Frieseke [email protected]

775 2295425 UMN Student

Manuel Orozco [email protected]


Justin Konen [email protected]


© 2007 Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved of 58

mailto:[email protected]






Charlie Vermace [email protected]


Kyle Johnson [email protected]

UMN Student

Ryan Ballard [email protected]

UMN Student

Kathryn Klarich [email protected]


Jordan Klussendorf

[email protected]


Laura McDonald [email protected]


David Buck [email protected]


Amy Mikus [email protected]

MN Professional

John Buzek [email protected]

612 4235289 MN Professional

Kris Lanrglie [email protected]

MN Professional

Derrick Passe [email protected]

763 2860570 MN Professional

2.0 Safety

2.1 Travel Safety

2.1.1 Department of State Travel Warning/Alert and International SOS Travel Risk Ratings

SOS Travel Risk RatingsCurrently there are no state department warnings or alerts for this country. (per the state department website).

2.1.2 Point to point travel detail

We will be traveling by air from Minneapolis, Minnesota to Guatemala City, Guatemala.From there a representative of Long Way Home, the local NGO that we are working with, will provide transportation to the village located north of Guatemala City near Chimaltenango.

2.1.3 On-the-ground phone number and email for travel team

The team has access to the internet while in country so all emails will be accessible in the evenings when the team has returned to the hotel after working in the village. In an






















emergency our NGO is available as well by contacting Mateo Paneitz: 978-352-6804; email address: [email protected]

U.S. Embassy in Guatemala City Avenida La Reforma 7-01, Zone 10(502) 2331-2354 for emergencies(502) 2326-4000 during business hours (8:00 am to 5:00 pm)(502) 2332-4353 fax

American Citizen Services Unit(3)(502) 2326-4405Monday through Thursday 7:30 am to 12:00 noon and 1:00 pm to 3:30 pmFriday 7:30 am to 11:30 amSaturday and Sunday closed

Roadside AssistanceRoadside assistance force PROVIAL(2)2419-2121basic tools, first aid supplies, services are free

Hospital Santiago Apostol (Private), 28.4 km away(5)Calle del Manchén #7Phone: 78 32 08 83Antigua, Guatemala

Hospital San Rafael Antigua Guatemala, 28.7 km away(1)

Hospital Evangelico El Buen Samaritano, Chichicastenango 32.4 km(1)

Hospitals in Guatemala City , 39.3 km away(7)

Hospital De Las Americas (private)10a. Calle 2-31, Zona 14Phone: 2384-3535 Fax: 2366-1029

Hospital General San Juan De Dios (Public Hospital)1a. Avenida 10-50, Zona 1Phone: 2253-0443/47, 2253-0423/29.Affiliated with University San Carlos School of Medicine

Roosevelt Hospital (Public Hospital)Calzada Roosevelt, Zona 11Phone: 2471-1441, 2472-1442, 2471-2389, 2472-1381, 472-1886


[email protected] with University San Carlos School of Medicine

2.2 Site Safety – Health and Safety Plan

See separate document.

3.0 Budget

3.1 Cost

Expense Total CostAirfare $6,000On Ground $4,250Materials $13,684Other $1,275Total $25,209

3.2 Hours

Names # of Weeks

Hours/Week Trip Hours Total Hours

Project Lead: John Frieseke

56 13 744 1,472

Mentor: Derrick Passe

56 10 744 1,304

Mentor: Peter Glashagel

42 10 168 588

Professional Team Members/ Mentors: John Buzek, John Chlebeck, Adam Klecker, Mark Ryan, Kris Langlie, Mark Arneson

20 5 804 904

Other Team Members (20 person average)

56 100 (5 hours per person)

6,384 11,984

*these hours represent cumulative hours spent preparing for this implementation. Trip hours represent hours spent in country for assessments and implementation.

3.3 Donors and Funding

Donor Name Type (company, foundation, private, Account Kept Amount


in-kind) at EWB-USA?Rotary Hudson Foundation No 5,000Rotary River Falls Foundation No 500Rotary International Foundation No 2,319Travel Team In-Kind NoMilwaukee High School of the Arts, National Honors Society

Private No 2,100

Pentair (Pending) Foundation No 12,500Institute on the Environment (pending)

Foundation No 6,000

Textile Sales Private No 400Caterpillar (pending) Foundation No 18,500Amount Raised: 10,319Amount Pending: 37,000Total: 47,319

4.0 Project LocationLongitude: -90.85Latitude: 14.79

5.0 Project ImpactNumber of persons directly affected: 2,500Number of persons indirectly affected: 2,500

6.0 Mentor Resume

Derrick J Passe492 Coulee Trail

Hudson, WI 54016Home: 715 386-8348 Mobile: 763 286-0570

[email protected]

ENGINEERING PROFILE:Experienced civil engineer with over 25 years of experience, BS in Civil Engineering, MS in Water Resource Science, and track record of success in engineering project goals. Skilled team member and problem solver able to identify cost effective designs to decrease expenditures of time and resources. Efficient, organized leader with success in engineering design specializing in water resources. Able to communicate engineering designs to diverse cultures. Expert-level skills in civil engineering, water resource management and business development.


RELEVANT EXPERIENCE:

Engineers Without Borders - MN Professionals 2005 - PresentPROJECT MANAGER – GUATEMALA

Led volunteer team of professional and student engineers in the assessment andimplementation of sustainable development projects.Completed a water system providing water to an environmental learning center.Constructed a Rainwater Harvesting System for a grade school.Currently assessing a water system for 2500 people. (Implementation January 2011)

Anderson Passe & Associates, Spring Lake Park,MN and Hudson, WI 1993 to 2009PRESIDENT, PROJECT MANAGER, CIVIL ENGINEER

Established Passe Engineering Incorporated (PEI) and grew company to 30Employees in three offices.Coordinated Civil Engineering and Land Surveying for construction and modification of roadways, water supplies, sanitary facilities, storm water management, wetland alter-ations and building construction.Marketed company to existing and prospective clients.Consulted with clients, public and private agencies to determine project requirements.Prepared preliminary and final plans for client, government, watershed, and agency ap-proval. Made technical presentations to elected and appointed officials to secure project approval.Assisted in the preparation of EAWs and met with concerned citizens to explain con-struction projects and modified details to reduce impacts where appropriate.Evaluated contractor performance to assure that their work met the project specifica-tions.Provided expert witness testimony to resolve civil construction claims.

Ulteig Engineers - Fridley, MN 1988 - 1993PROJECT MANAGER, CIVIL ENGINEER

Worked with private clients to design, develop and construct private improvement projects.Administered contracts between the Owner and Contractor for the construction of im-provement projects.Worked on construction projects including roadways, site grading, wetland alteration,water facilities, sanitary installations and drainage structures.

DeWayne C. Olson Consulting Engineers - Spring Lake Park, MN 1984 – 1987ENGINEER IN TRAINING

Design engineer for private improvement projects.Securing approvals from City, State and Federal Agencies.Inspected projects on behalf of the Owner and City to assure that the Contractor com-pleted the improvements in accordance with the Plans and Specifications.


EDUCATION:

University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, July 2010M.S., Water Resource Science, GPA: 3.68/.4.00Thesis – Providing Safe Drinking Water in Guatemala Through Collaboration, Metering and Monitoring.

University of Wisconsin - Platteville, Platteville, Wisconsin, December 1983B.S., Civil Engineering, GPA: 3.42/4.00.

LICENSES AND CERTIFICATIONS:

Professional Engineer - Minnesota, 1988-present.Professional Engineer - Wisconsin, 1988-present.Stream Restoration, Science and Engineering of, Post Baccalaureate Certificate, 2010.First Responder - Wisconsin, 2003-2009.Wetland Delineation & Management, USACOE Training, 2001.


Pre-Implementation Report Part 2 – Technical Information

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This document will demonstrate how the design of water system improvements proposed by the University of Minnesota and Minnesota Professional chapters of Engineers Without Borders will aid Simajhuleu, Guatemala.

Simajhuleu is economically, socially and politically isolated from the rest of Guatemala largely due to its inaccessibility in the central highlands. This is exacerbated during the rainy season when rain, mud, and landslides effectively obstruct dirt roads, which serve as the only means of transportation.

The village of Simajhuleu relies on an outdated gravity fed water distribution system that goes through 150 meters of vertical elevation change in which water pressure can exceed 215 psi. The citizens of Simajhuleu are forced to keep all taps open to prevent the excessive pressure from damaging the aging and inadequate pipe system. A great deal of water is lost at the point of use and at system wide leaks due to pressure related damage. As a consequence, the system does not adequately meet the water needs of the 2500 residents of Simajhuleu. The COCODE, or water board, currently rations water distribution with a rotating schedule that allows access to water one out of every three days.

We, the Engineers Without Borders chapter at the University of Minnesota - Twin Cities, jointly with the Minneapolis Professional Chapter, have engineered a solution to reduce the pressure load in Water Area C with a series of pressure break tanks. A new trunk line will be installed to connect the pressure break tanks on one end to the existing storage tank and at the other end to the existing distribution system. This new system will provide water to four segments of Water Area C and will connect to existing lines that serve individual homes. Each segment will be served by one pressure break tank, which will be designed to limit the maximum pressure for each segment. This will allow families who have received a sufficient amount of water to shut off their taps without damaging the system. Water that would have been wasted would now backfill the distribution line and be available elsewhere.

By reducing the pressure we will also allow the water board in Simajhuleu to begin work on the existing distribution network. Until now the water board has been fixing leaks and repairing the system to the best of their ability. However, due to the high pressure, a fix in one part of the system often causes another area to fail. After the pressure is regulated, these repairs can become permanent.

To begin to address the issue of excessive demand these implementations will be partnered with an ongoing education campaign. This will focus on demonstrating to the village the importance of closing their taps when they have received the appropriate amount of water. We will stress the importance of this requirement as no system can operate with all taps open at all times.


This implementation is the first of many steps to creating a well functioning and adequate water system in Simajhuleu. The work required to address the many flaws of Simajhuleu's distribution system are beyond the scope of a single implementation. Therefore, future implementations will include creating pressure break tanks for Water Areas A and B, which will be very similar to the proposed system for area C. This will be followed by the construction of a storage tank, which will provide the village with the ability to store one day’s worth of water. This new tank will allow the system to meet peak demand as well as act as a safety net when the supply lines are broken.

2.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND

Simajhuleu covers approximately 6 square kilometers where approximately 2,500 community members reside. An almost 40 year old PVC pipeline originally designed and left incomplete by a Canadian engineering firm, is the current means of distributing water to the residents. The number of residents in the village has almost doubled since the original system was designed, re-sulting in a larger demand of water. As the system ages, leaks occur from built up pressure at the end of the system further decreasing the amount of water available.

The pipeline is composed of PVC no greater the 2.5 inches in diameter and the majority is con-structed from 1 ¼ in and 3/4 in PVC. The system is fed from three springs located 4 to 8 kilome-ters away and is able to supply the village with 92 Liters Per Capita Daily or PLCD (Appendix E). This was determined through measuring the inflow into the main tank where all three supply lines meet before entering the distribution system. At this point in the system, a chlorination sys-tem was installed and is still currently used to clean the water before being distributed. The chlo-rination system is a pool chlorinator that uses tablets, supplied by the government, to treat the water. This system has been tested by the government and has passed due to no identification of biological contaminates. Our team also analyzed the water and confirmed the government’s re-sults. Our investigation also tested for contamination from chemicals, heavy metals, and physical characteristics. All of these tests concluded that the water is safe to drink.

The COCODE, or water board of the village, is responsible for the care and repair of the water system. The COCODE is a group of elected officials that regulates the uses and repairs of the system and has been able to keep the current system operational for almost 40 years with very limited monetary resources. However, the COCODE does have a valuable set of skills. Most if its members are skilled tradesmen in masonry, plumbing and carpentry. This skill set would fac-tor into our materials selection as well as our operation and maintenance plans.

Despite the best efforts of the COCODE, the system is failing to adequately serve the village. Af-ter initial analysis of the supply to the system, it was determined that the existing supply will ad-equately serve the village with a sufficient supply of water if there are no losses in the distribu-tion system.

The village is divided into 6 political sectors. Sectors 1 and 2 receive water one day (Water Area A), sectors 3 and 4 the next (Water Area B), and sector five the last day in the cycle (Water Area


C). Sector 6 has an independent water system. Losses in each sector have been found to be ap-proximately 45% in Water Area C, 25% in Water Area B, and only 20% in Water Area C (Ap-pendix E) leading Area C to be in the most need. These figures are calculated by measuring the flow into the sector on the day it gets water then measuring a large number of points of use and averaging this across the total number of access point in the sector. Taking the difference on these two numbers we identify the percentage of loss.

For the purposes of this design Sectors 1 and 2 are Water Area A, Sectors 3 and 4 are Water Are B, and Sector 5 is Water Area C. This makes communication simpler as in this proposal we will be splitting Sector 5 or Water Area C into sub-sectors 1 through 4.

After several assessment trips, an alternatives analysis was completed. Our investigation was di-vided into three categories: supply, distribution, and demand. Each will be discussed briefly be-low.

First, increasing the supply would allow more LPCD for the village and would be beneficial. However, with the current distribution system, increasing the amount of water in the system will not decrease the amount of leakage in the system. Further, the current supply line is ¾ in and cannot transport the additional water. Another difficulty in increasing the supply is finding an-other source of water. Due to the mountainous terrain, it would be difficult to drill a well and ad-ditional springs or spring capacity could not be identified.

Second, decreasing demand was considered. We would need to work directly with the people in the community to convince those who use too much water to change their habits to allow their neighbors to receive more water. This is a low cost solution, however the impact will not be high. Without regulating the pressure in the system having people turn their taps off would in-crease the pressure causing additional leaks rather than getting the water to people who currently do not receive the water they need.

Finally, the alterations to the distribution system were explored. After examining the system, we identified the losses listed in Appendix E and created solutions to prevent these losses. One pos-sible solution is to break the pressure in the system through building small tanks that would tem-porarily store the water, alleviating pressure. We also investigated creating additional storage tanks in the village. These tanks would artificially create a larger supply because the system would be able to meet peak demands. This could be accomplished two different ways. The first was to make the pressure break tanks larger. This would be effective, however, they would have a larger footprint in places in the village where the space might not be available. The other option was to create one large tank that stored a sufficient amount of water from which that water could then be distributed. This would also allow the regulation of pressure at each new small tank, which allows the regulation of water at each point of use location. Constructing the pressure break tanks and the storage tank on the same trip would be difficult. This would mean there would be a delay in the proposed system being able to operate at 100% effectiveness.

The results of this alternatives analysis contained 26 different potential implementations in the village. To narrow down the list, we presented this information to a panel of professional engi-neers and experienced international development workers from outside EWB. The results of this


feedback then narrowed our options to six different configurations. These options were focused on the distribution system because the feasibility of adding supply was limited and limiting de-mand would have limited effect without an improved distribution system. These options were then presented to the COCODE. They also had identified the distribution system as the compo-nent whose improvement would be most beneficial prior to our arrival.

After discussing the options with the COCODE the type of system that was selected was based on several factors. First, the community needed to understand what each component was for and how it accomplished this goal. Second, they needed to feel as though they could operate and maintain the new system. The system they felt most comfortable with was a single large storage tank similar to the existing collection tank partnered with a series of small pressure break tanks. These tanks would be used to distribute the water and ensure that the pressures in the system would not become excessive. Connecting these pressure break tanks to the storage would be ac-complished by a trunk line. This line will not have any private access attached to it. This will en-sure that the correct amount of water gets to the population centers in the village. These indepen-dent lines will utilize the current distribution system preventing us from needing to interrupt ev-ery household to reconstruct their lines. As well as the expense of replacing the tens of kilome-ters of pipe in the village

After these criteria we needed to decide on the order in which these configurations could be im-plemented. The COCODE wanted to regulate the pressure as soon as possible. This would allow them to do accomplish two things. First, they could begin to repair the system’s leaks without worrying that a new leak will sprout up somewhere else, and second, they would be able to begin a long-term effort to educate the village about how much water they should be receiving. With the pressure regulated, they could begin this effort without worrying that if they are successful they will cause damage to the existing system by raising the pressure when people’s taps shut off. This meant that the pressure break tanks and trunk lines would need to be built first and the storage tank later. The COCODE also thought that the first implementation should be in Water Area C because of the significantly higher losses in this portion of the system.

However, our solution will not solve all of the issues with the current system. Each sector will still receive water only once every three days and there will also still be leaks in the system due to cracked pipes. Despite these issues, EWB-UMN believes our solution will best address the needs of the community. Both increasing the supply and creating a new distribution system is the ideal solution, however, is very impractical when the landscape, resources, and time frames are considered. Our solution will first improve the distribution system so that future work by EWB-UMN and the community members can be sustainable and effective. The village understands our work will start in Water Area C and will incrementally extend to the other areas and their prob-lems will not be immediately resolved. However, in the long run, our system will equitably sup-ply all villagers with an adequate amount of water.

3.0 FACILITY DESIGN


The design will be described as section A, which describes the piping network, and section B, which details the concrete pressure breaking tanks.

3.1 Description of the Proposed Facilities

This proposal is the first of several steps in creating a sustainable and equitable water supply and distribution system for Simajhuleu Guatemala. While this implementation focuses on water area C, water areas A and B will also require a similar implementation involving pressure regulation and water distribution network improvements similar to those described in this implementation report. This will be followed by the construction of a large storage tank. By phasing the implementation is such a way the problems in the system can be broken into manageable pieces for each implementation.

As described in the program background the goals for this implementation as well as the subsequent phases of implementation are to establish a sustainable and equitable water distribution system that provides and adequate quantity of water to as many of the villagers as possible. These goals were developed through cooperation between EWB UMN and the COCODE.

To make the system sustainable, equitable and adequate we created the following design requirements and objectives.

Requirements

1. All static pressures below 80psi2. All dynamic pressures greater than 0psi at peak flow rate

These two requirements will serve to prevent the system from reaching pressure levels that could damage the system preventing sustainability. By raising the dynamic pressure to a positive value we will also ensure that each family will be able to receive water when they turn their taps on aiding in equitability and reducing demand. Lowering the highest pressures seen at the points of use and raising the lowest pressures the water available to each family will be more consistent and well regulated despite the geography of the village.

These two requirement would determine the basic sizing, development, and configuration of our system. They would also be the facets of the system that would be most important in any design trades that would be made throughout the process. These requirements would also stay the same throughout the design process.

Objectives

1. 80 Liters Per Capita Daily (LPCD) or greater supplied to each sector and sub-sector 2. Water publicly available in sufficient quantities at all times3. Peak flow rate is one gallon per second or .063 l/s (1 gallon per min) at each tap in the

existing distribution system


4. Peak flow rate is .1 l/s for each tap in the new trunk lines 5. All flow velocities less than 10 ft/s or 3.04 m/s6. Water hammer effectively mitigated7. All locally available materials8. All necessary construction skills and techniques available within Simajhuleu9. Minimum 50 LPCD to each family with an average of 80 LPCD10. All dynamic pressures greater than 5psi at peak flow rate11. Able to be shut off and allow the system to operate as it currently does if the new system

fails to improve the state of operation. 12. Water available in storage for emergency use13. Water available each day for 24 hours

These objectives would be used to further refine the design of the system while others will be the focus of future implementations.

While many of these objectives have been previously communicated and well understood our peak flow and flow velocities have been created as design solutions where by a result is set out as a requirement in order to give the design a direction. By limiting the velocity of the flow we accomplish two goals. One is self-serving in that the Haze Williams approximation begins breaking down when pipe velocities exceed 10 ft/s or approximately 3 m/s. More importantly at these high velocities we begin to see turbulent flows, which increase the wear and tear on the pipes. High velocities also cause higher spikes in water hammer pressures that could cause our pipes and joints to fail.

To determine our peak flow we used two different sources. First was the EWB Webinar on water systems. In this presentation four key factors are listed.

1. Will you have community taps or house holds taps?2. How many taps will you have and what is the likelihood that they will be on at the same

time?3. What is your desired flow rate at each tap? Recommended values start 0.1 liters per sec-

ond; however this is probably to low for community taps. Need to balance time saving with water conservation.

4. Will you have a storage tank to help met peak demands?

After talking with Kelly Latham, a project manager with EWB-USA, she explained further “An acceptable value would range anywhere from 2 x Average Daily Demand (for systems with storage and low probability that all taps will be on at the same time) to 0.1 to 0.5 lps X number of taps on each line (for systems with high probability that all taps will be on at the same time).”

In this presentation a flow of .1 to .5 liters per second was desired to supply a sufficient quantity of water for public taps and to have flow rates high enough to prevent blockage. The .5 l/s was recommended for larger communities while .1 would be sufficient for a small number of families. To design our trunk lines we selected the peak flow to be .1 l/s at each tap as currently


the system operates with all taps open at all times. For example a trunk line serving 38 taps would be required to deliver 3.8 l/s of flow. This is intended to ensure that a large enough quantity is available to each home at a large enough flow to prevent blockages. This is also done to reassure the user that a sufficient quantity of water is available and turning the tap off is a viable option.

For the existing system we used a smaller number for two key reasons. When designing the trunk lines we selected 0.1 l/s as a goal to ensure it adequately served the population below it with room for population growth. Since the existing system is in place we will not be able to place such an aggressive goal on it and be able to achieve it without drastic modifications. As a result we determined that a smaller number would be needed. We also concluded that having the community expect such a flow at all times could lead to the impression that more water is available that there is and undermine our water conservation goals. To start we used Kelly’s formula of 2 times the average daily demand. The average daily demand is difficult to estimate as currently the limiting factor is not demand but the supply and projecting how the village would behave if that were not the case is difficult. For our calculations we used the information we collected from the point of use meters.

Demand Flow RateLPCD Liters per

second200 0.069100 0.03580 0.027

Another suggestion we were given based on intuition was one gallon per minute, which works out to 0.063 l/s. This is only slightly lower than the highest observed demand. This number was then used in sizing the tank outlets and identifying areas where modifications to the existing system would be needed to meet this requirement.

Ultimately our design concluded in a system that utilizes the existing system to deliver water to the homes in the village but is augmented by the addition of a trunk line and pressure breaking tanks that allow the system to function within the design objectives and requirements laid out previously. The pressure breaking tanks utilize a float valve and weirs to distribute the water equitably between the sub-sectors. The float valves also prevent water from overflowing the tanks and being wasted.

The trunk lines deliver water from the existing tank that collects water from each of the village’s three springs and delivers the water to each of the three sub-sectors. These sub sectors were created on the basis of elevation and proximity. To meet the requirement of pressures no greater than 80 psi the 150 meters of elevation change needed to be divided into three. While sub-sectors 2 and 3 have similar elevations they are separated by a valley necessitating two different sub-sectors and therefore tanks.

This analysis gave us a general location where the tanks needed to be in order to reduce pressure as we had set out. This was later adjusted slightly in order to accommodate for land rights,


terrain and other factors.

The tanks themselves are concrete reinforced with rebar and have interior dimensions of 1x1x1 meter. They will sit in the ground with only the top and hatch above ground. These tanks will also have three compartments within them. The first will collect the water and be divided from the others by weirs, which will provide the last two compartments with a quantity of water proportional to the population served by the outlet pipe from these two compartments. A summary of the calculations used to design these tanks is included below in the description of design and design calculations section of this report.

The Trunk lines consist of pipes from 3 to 2.5 inches in diameter and conveys water from the storage tank to the sub-sectors within sector 5. They are mostly made of straight lines where the flexibility of PVC will allow us to account for the gentle turns and slopes along the route. These pipes were sized using the calculations described in section 3.2 below.

Leading from the concrete tanks to the existing system is a local service line. These were sized to keep friction to a minimum as described below. This is the direct connection between our system and the existing system. By manipulating the length and diameter of these pipes we are able to keep the total dynamic head of the points of use in the system above the requirements. In all but one case this was accomplished by a direct connection. However in sub-sector 4 the 3 inch line is extended and replaces the first 100m of existing 1.5 inch line. This effectively raises the pressures for all but two of the homes to be above 5 psi of total dynamic head.

3.2 Description of Design and Design Calculations

3.2.A Piping Network

Summary of Piping Design Calculations These calculations were done using spreadsheets attached to this document and this summary explains their construction and how to use them.

Total dynamic head was calculated using the Hazen-Williams method, with a coefficient value of 130, standard for PVC.

The numbering system for the nodes was made to coincide with a computer model, which is no longer being used. The layout of the village, in schematic form (i.e. not to scale, only which nodes connect to which nodes) is included in the document SimaPipeFrame.pdf This is a scan of a hand-drawn schematic, but should provide the necessary understanding of the overall layout.

The Static Head is the meters of H20 of head given by the elevation change. The elevation data was collected with a Total Station.


The number of houses is the number of houses fed by the pipes that we are determining the head for. For example, the first house on the line in Pressure Zone 1, J162, has the head loss of ALL houses in the zones through the main feeder line, however, because of a branch in the system, the pipe leading directly to J162 has to carry only the water for the 8 houses on that branch. The house after that, J192, would have the head loss associated with the main line with all houses, the line to J162 with 8 houses, and the line from J162 to J192 with 7 houses.

The flow rates are calculated based on an assumed demand per tap, and the total amount of water that is flowing through the pipes to serve all homes farther down the line in the system.

Assumed that there is 10m of 0.75 inch PVC feeding each house from the mainline. This accounts for the setbacks of the house from the road/mainline. This will be a conservative estimate in almost all cases.

Total head is static head minus frictional head losses.

For the 'Trunk Lines' sheet:

In order to determine the correct sizes, the total head loss (determined by Hazen Williams) was set equal to the amount of static head. This was iterated until the correct size was found, and the terminal velocity of the pipe was then calculated by taking the flow rate at this moment divided by the cross sectional are of the pipe. This allows us to calculate the maximum possible velocity in the pipe, ensuring that the velocity of the water stays around approximately 5 feet per second (1.53 m/s) while still providing an adequate amount of water.

The water hammer section shows that, with a long enough valve closure time (controlled by the length of the float arm) water hammer effects are not a danger to our pipes. Using the standard water hammer equation of P = 0.07V*L / (t +P1) and our float arm of 0.5m, the maximum water hammer effects in any of the tanks is under 16psi.These formulas, and methods were used to size the lines in the system as well as the outlets from the tanks into the existing system. The goal of sizing these pipes, however, was significantly different. In order to increase the total dynamic head these pipes were made quite large. This is made possible by the weirs in the tanks which will distribute the water proportionately despite the pipes sizes. The calculations and details can be seen in the attached spreadsheet titled Distribution_Network_Final.xls

The resultant nominal pipe sizes are as follows in inches.

Tank 1 Inlet Pipe Outlet to Local Outlet to Tanks 2 and 32.5 3 3

Split in line Inlet Pipe Outlet to Tank 2 Outlet to Tank 33 0.75 3

Tank 2 Inlet Pipe Outlet to Local0.75 0.75

Tank 3 Inlet Pipe Outlet to Local Outlet to Tank 43 3 2.5


Tank 4 Inlet Pipe Outlet to Local3 3

Detailed Pipeing Design Calculations

To ensure that the pipes between pressure break tanks are of sufficient size to provide the water needed Manning’s Equation was used.

Manning’s Equation, used for modeling open-channel flow, is specifically for gravity-powered flow systems. With it, the flow velocity can be found given characteristics of the pipe:

2/13/2 SR

nk=V

h(1)

where:

V = cross-sectional average velocityk = conversion constant (1.486 for U.S. units, 1 for SI units)n = “Manning’s n”, a frictional coefficient dependent on pipe materialRh = A/P, the cross sectional area of the pipe divided by its wetted perimeter, called the hydraulic radiusS = slope of pipe

This equation can then be modified to find the flow rate for a full pipe by substituting AQ=V / where Q is the flow rate and A is the cross-sectional area. Also, since the pipe is assumed to be full, the wetted perimeter of the pipe is simply the inner circumference of the pipe. Substituting

4

2Dp=A and pD=P where D is the inner diameter of the pipe, the equation becomes:

2/13/22

44SD

nkpD=Q ⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎝⎛ (2)

Thus, the flow rate capacity of a pipe can be found given its diameter, slope, and frictional coefficient.

In addition, the Energy Equation was also used as an auxiliary method of finding flow capacity. The Bernoulli Equation is an equation that relies on conservation of energy to find flow characteristics at either end of a control volume:

Ltp h+h+z+V

á+gp

=h+z+V

á+gp

222

22

121

11

2g2g(3)

where:p = pressure at a certain location = fluid density times the force of gravity


= kinetic energy correction factorz = elevation at a certain locationV = fluid average velocity at a certain locationhp = pump headht = turbine headhL = head loss

By drawing a control volume such that the endpoints are both pressure break tanks, and flow cannot escape through any other boundary, many terms drop out of the equation. Since no turbine or pump is present, both the turbine and pump heads are zero. Also, since the pressure break tanks are open to atmospheric pressure, they are at equal pressures, which can be subtracted from the equation. The velocities in each tank are also equal, since no flow enters or exits the control volume through any other means. Given these assumptions, the equation simplifies to:

Lh+z=z 21 (4)

Since the elevation of each tank is known, all that is left to find is the head loss. Head loss in a system without components, such as bends or diameter transitions, is given by the following equation:

2g

2VDLf=hL (5)

where:

f = friction factor of pipeL = length of pipeD = diameter of pipeV = average cross-sectional velocity of pipe flowg = force of gravity

The friction factor f is dependant upon the velocity of flow, pipe diameter, and flow viscosity in the following manner:

2

0.910 Re5.74

3.7Dlog

0.25

⎥⎦⎤

⎢⎣⎡ ⎟

⎠⎞⎜

⎝⎛ +

k=f

s (6)

where:

ks = equivalent sand roughness of pipe

íVD=Re = flow Reynold’s Number, where = kinematic viscosity of fluid

Now, rewriting the head loss implicitly in terms of flow rate and pipe diameter, again by


substituting 4

2Dp=A and AQ=V / , the final equation obtained is:

gDpLQ

ípD+k

+zz=2

s

5220.9

10

128

4Q5.74

3.7Dlog

0.250

⎥⎥⎦

⎤⎢⎢⎣

⎡⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛⎟⎟⎠⎞

⎜⎜⎝⎛

−(7)

To find pipe capacity, a diameter and a guess for Q are chosen. The equation is then iterated, varying Q until the equation is satisfied. This Q found is the maximum flow rate the given pipe can support, assuming the only energy lost is due to head loss.

With these two methods for finding capacity, the choices for pipe diameter can be verified to be sufficient. By using the length, diameter, and elevation difference/slope of each individual pipe, the maximum flow rates can be found using the following values for PVC and water:

Parameter ValueManning’s n 0.01

ks m´ 6101 −

sm´ /101 26−

g

€

9.81m /s2

The demand calculated assuming that forty percent of the households would require water at a given time. With this assumption and the above constants, the flow capacities for each respective pipe are given in the table below. The pipe sizes were chosen to handle flows that exceed the demands.

3.2.A Concrete Pressure Break Tanks

Summary of Concrete Tank Design

Objective: Determine whether the provided architectural drawings are sufficient for a Pressure Break Tank (PBT) design.

Allowable tension in concrete based on AASHTO recommendations

Side Panel Design

From Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain 5th Edition, Table 26, Case 9d – One edge free, other three edges supported. Distributed load varies linearly along the length of the side panel.


The stress, s, on the side panel is significantly less than the allowable tensile stress, therefore no reinforcement is needed. Also, since the PBT will be placed below grade, there is a lack of large temperature differences, meaning no shrinkage and temperature steel is needed.

Bottom Design

From Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain 4th Edition, Table X, Case 36 –all four edges supported. Distributed load is uniform over the entire bottom of the PBT.

The stress, s, on the bottom is significantly less than the allowable tensile stress, therefore no reinforcement is needed. Also, since the PBT will be placed below grade, there is a lack of large temperature differences, meaning no shrinkage and temperature steel is needed.

Lid Design

Deflections

Minimum Thickness of Lid – ACI 318-08 Table 9.5(a) – simply supported, one-way slab

The designed lid thickness is sufficient for deflection requirements.

Flexure

From Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain 4th Edition, Table X, Case 36 –all four edges supported. Distributed load is uniform over the entire bottom of the PBT.

The stress, s, on the lid is significantly less than the allowable tensile stress, therefore no reinforcement is needed. However, since the lid will be placed above grade, shrinkage and temperature steel should be used.

Shear


Shear capacity, φVn, is computed using equation 22-9 from ACI 318-08.

The maximum stress seen by the lid is 202lb, while the shear capacity is 1034.1lb. This means that the lid design is more than sufficient for shear requirements. The design checks allow for the PBT to be constructed without the use of structural reinforcement. In addition, all design checks were satisfied by the design depicted in the architectural plans.

Weir Strength Design

Stress Design:

From Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain 5th Edition, Table 26, Case 10d – One edge free, other three edges supported. Distributed load varies linearly along the length of the side panel.

The minimum thickness needed for stress purposes of the weir is 0.32in.

Compressive Design:

A slender column is defined by ACI 318-08 Section 10.10.1 as having a ratio of . Solve

for the thickness, t.

Assuming a factor of safety of 1.75, t = 4.72” = 12cmRecommended reinforcement of a column is around 1% of the total area of the column.Compressive strength of the weir is as follows:

These calculations show that if the weir is 12cm thick, it can withstand significantly more compressive force than one adult could provide. In addition to compressive reinforcement, transverse reinforcement of #4 bars should be placed every 6 in.


Details of Concrete Tank Design

The design of the pressure break tanks is based on the design of a Guatemalan engineer (Appendix B-1) that was commissioned by Simajhuleu for a supply line. The tank was adapted for use in our system for the number of outlets required. The structural calculations on the design are shown on the following page. Also, included in Appendix B-2 is the design check as performed by John R. Buzek a professional engineer. Though both sets of calculations conclude that rebar is unnecessary it will still be included for added durability. Rebar will be spaced horizontally and vertically in 12” spacing. Not noted in the drawing is that the concrete mixture to be used is 1:2:3. This mix design is explained in its entirety in Appendix B-7.

Objective: Determine whether the provided architectural drawings are sufficient for a Pressure Break Tank (PBT) design.

Assumptions: PBT will be made of concrete Top of tank will be flush with grade Side panels are 1.1m x 1.1m Side panels are simply supported on 3 sides and free on the 4th side Bottom dimensions are 1.0m x 1.0m Bottom slab and lid are simply supported on all 4 sides Concrete Strength f’c = 3000psi Reinforcing Steel Strength Fy = 40 ksi Specific Gravity of Soil = 2.4 Soil Density: ρ = 2.4*62.4 lb/ft3 = 150 lb/ft3

Soil Lateral Pressure Coefficient = 1.0

Allowable tension in concrete (AASHTO recommended)

Plan View Elevation View

0.25m 1.0m 0.25m

0.25m

1.0m

0.25m

0.1m 0.25m 1.0m 0.25m 0.1m

0.15m

1.1m


Side Panel DesignFrom Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain 4th Edition, Table X, Case 49 – One edge free, other three edges supported. Distributed load varies linearly along the length of the side panel.

The stress, s, on the side panel is significantly less than the allowable tensile stress, therefore no reinforcement is needed. Also, since the PBT will be placed below grade, there is a lack of large temperature differences, meaning no shrinkage and temperature steel is needed.

Bottom DesignFrom Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain 4th Edition, Table X, Case 36 –all four edges supported. Distributed load is uniform over the entire bottom of the PBT.

The stress, s, on the bottom is significantly less than the allowable tensile stress, therefore no reinforcement is needed. Also, since the PBT will be placed below grade, there is a lack of large temperature differences, meaning no shrinkage and temperature steel is needed.


Free Edge

w

a = 1.1m

w

a = 1.0m

a = 0.67m

wu= 50.3 lb/ft

55.3 lb

Lid Design

Assumptions: Modeled as a beam equal to the middle 1/3 of the lid, b = 8in Simply supported on both ends λ = 1 for normal weight concrete tl = 0.06m = 0.06m*3.28ft/m*12in/ft =2.36in clear span = l = (0.6m + 0.07m) * 3.28ft/m*12in/ft =26.4in

self weight, wd

live load = 25 lb/ft2

wu = 1.4*wd = 1.4*29.5 lb/ft2 = 41.3 lb/ft2 wu = 1.2*wd + 1.6*wL=1.2*29.5 lb/ft2 + 1.6*25 lb/ft2 = 75.4 lb/ft2 = 0.52 psi (controlling case)

DeflectionsMinimum Thickness of Lid – ACI 318-08 Table 9.5(a) – simply supported, one-way slab

The designed lid thickness is sufficient for deflection requirements.

FlexureFrom Roark, Formulas for Stress and Strain 4th Edition, Table X, Case 36 –all four edges supported. Distributed load is uniform over the entire bottom of the PBT.

The stress, s, on the lid is significantly less than the allowable tensile stress, therefore no reinforcement is needed. However, since the lid will be placed above grade, shrinkage and temperature steel should be used

ShearShear capacity, ϕVn, is computed using equation 22-9 from ACI 318-08

FBD:


The maximum stress seen by the lid is 55.3lb, while the shear capacity is 1034.1 lb. This means that the lid design is more than sufficient for shear requirements.

Conclusion: The design checks shown above allow for the PBT to be constructed without the use of structural reinforcement. In addition, all design checks were satisfied by the design depicted in the architectural plans.

3.3 Drawings

4.0 PROJECT OWNERSHIP

The system will be owned by the Village of Simajhuleu and will be maintained under the authority of the COCODE (water board). Daily operation of the system will be carried out by Don Lucas, a plumber hired by the COCODE. The village has similarly taken ownership of the recent rainwater harvesting project and has been managing and maintaining it for the past year. (Daily operation of the rainwater system is being done by a group called Padres de la Comunidad, which is similar to our PTA.)

Encouraging the village to take ownership of the project has been the motivation behind their heavy involvement in the design process which allows them to have input on what sort of system they would most want to use and maintain. This is also our motivation in requiring the water board to provide 10% of the funding for materials. This demonstrates their ability to raise and provide funding for future operation and maintenance. It also puts a monetary value on the project making it something worthwhile to protect and preserve well into the future.

The COCODE had a hand in selecting the materials, construction methods, and system operation with the expressed goal of including things they had worked with before or were otherwise familiar.


Ownership will also be encouraged to maintain the system through a series of education, outreach, and training activities. Education will consist of demonstrating economically and culturally appropriate methods of water conservation and cleaning. Conducted as a part of smaller group meetings, these education events will also give us an opportunity to help the villagers understand what our project is about, how they will benefit from it, and what they can do to help increase the effectiveness of the project. Knowledge will also be shared as the EWB members and villagers work side by side on the construction site. By demonstrating how each component works and fits into the entirety of the system we will be helping them understand the system’s operation.

These programs, meant to foster continued ownership of the system, will be supplemented by oversight from Long Way Home (LWH), our partnering nongovernmental organization. LWH has lived in the area since 2003 and conducted many large-scale construction projects. Their members will serve as the local “go to” for any questions the village might have that need immediate attention. They will also serve as a reliable point of contact for both EWB-UMN and Simajhuleu during times of cell phone and internet interruption.

5.0 CONSTRUCTION

5.1 Construction Plan

The construction plan for laying of the pipe will be broken into two sections: the connections and the mainline.

The 'connections' section involves everything within 20 meters (or 3 pieces of PVC) of the pressure break tanks. This will involve correctly placing and securing the pipes through the walls of the pressure break tanks. The pipe areas in contact with the cement will be knurled to ensure correct bonding, and the pipes will be held in place using x-looped wire hangers where backfilling is not ideal while the cement cures. Flow meters are to be installed just downstream of the tanks and will be tested for water-tightness before being installed. These areas will be directly overseen or conducted by EWB-UMN members, to ensure that the most vital parts of the system are completed to specification. Connections to the existing distribution will be completed by Don Lucas and performed on days when Water Area C is not receiving water.

The 'mainline' section involves the piping running between all the tanks of the system. This area is going to be installed almost entirely by the villagers, with a small group of EWB members helping and providing oversight. Care will be taken to make sure that the village understands that the pipe must be:

Buried to a depth of 18 inches from (or knee depth when stepping down the pipe)1

1 ASTM D2241 from http://www.northamericanpipe.com/tech/burialdepths.html under traffic loads.

http://www.northamericanpipe.com/tech/burialdepths.html


Connected using only proper, manufactured bell end or sleeve connections Using primer and glue properly at every joint

Due to the extremely high cohesion and strength of the soil, it is feasible to dig the entire trench first, then lay-out and assemble the pipe above ground next to it. Once fully set, the pipe will be placed into the trench, and backfilled, with the backfill being tamped in two lifts, once with the trench halfway full using a simple dropping weight, and once while flush with the ground using either a dropping weight or vehicle where possible. We anticipate backfilling to take a considerable amount of time due to the soil characteristics mentioned earlier. If cave-ins in the trench do become an issue, although quite unlikely given the soil characteristics, a supported cantilever construction system would be used. This would greatly increase the amount of time needed to correctly connect and install the pipe.

As for scheduling, the pipe will be installed during the construction of the walls of the pressure break tanks, so that they can be encased in concrete. The village has signed a document that they will have the trench dug for the pipe mainline before our arrival, which will begin following EWB-USA approval. Pipe laying to our specifications will commence with our arrival on site, can continue concurrently with tank construction, and should be completed and backfilled within the first two weeks of our arrival. The laying of pipe is not on our critical path, and has approximately several days of float if necessary. We anticipate being able to lay and backfill approximately 200 meters of pipe each day.

Each tank will require approximately 21 hours to construct and 10-14 days to cure.A detailed construction plan can be found in Appendix B-7. The general timeline per tank can be broken down as follows:Task TimeSite Prep 2 hoursDrains 2 hoursFloor, Roof, Lid 4 hoursWalls and Connections 4 hoursWeirs 4 hoursValve Box 1 hoursCuring 10-14 daysFinalizing and Piping 2 hoursTotal 21 hours + 10-14 days

Four tanks will be constructed in two weeks. The initial construction will be completed during the first 4 days of construction. The final connection time will depend on curing times. The COCODE has the necessary skills needed to finish the construction, if needed. The estimated construction timeline is shown below.

Construction TimelineDays of Construction

Tasks Time EWB Members

Community Members

1 1. Stake out all four 1. 3 hours 1. 10 1. 10


tanks2. Construct rebar

cage of tank 13. Construct forms of

tank 14. Construct rebar

cage of tank 25. Construct forms of

tank 26. Connect pipeline

2. 4 hours

3. 4 hours

4. 4 hours

5. 4 hours

6. 4 hours

2. 5

3. 5

4. 5

5. 5

6. 5

2. 5

3. 5

4. 5

5. 5

6. 10

2 1. Pour tank 12. Pour tank 23. Connect pipeline

1. 8 hours2. 8 hours3. 8 hours

1. 52. 53. 5

1. 52. 53. 10

3 1. Construct rebar and forms of tank 3

2. Construct rebar and forms of tank 4

3. Pour concrete weirs for tank1

4. Pour concrete weirs for tank 2

5. Connect pipeline

1. 4 hours

2. 4 hours

3. 4 hours

4. 4 hours

5. 8 hours

1. 5

2. 5

3. 5

4. 5

5. 5

1. 5

2. 5

3. 5

4. 5

5. 10

4 1. Pour Tank 32. Pour Tank 43. Connect Pipeline

1. 8 hours2. 8 hours3. 8 hours

1. 52. 53. 5

1. 52. 53. 10

5 1. Connect Pipeline 1. 8 hours 1. 15 1. 20

6 1. Remove formwork and pour concrete weirs for tank 1

2. Remove formwork and pour concrete weirs for tank 2

3. Connect pipeline

1. 8 hours

2. 8 hours

3. 8 hours

1. 5

2. 5

3. 5

1. 5

2. 5

3. 10

7 1. Moisten concrete of curing tanks

2. Connect pipeline

1. 2 hours

2. 8 hours

1. 1

2. 15

1. 1

2. 20

8 1. Remove formwork of and pour con-crete weirs for tank 3

2. Remove formwork and pour concrete

1. 4 hours

2. 4 hours

1. 5

2. 5

1. 5

2. 5


weirs for tank 4 3. Moisten concrete

of curing tanks4. Connect pipeline

3. 2 hours

4. 8 hours

3. 1

4. 5

3. 1

4. 10

9 1. Moisten concrete of curing tanks

2. Connect pipeline

1. 3 hours

2. 8 hours

1. 2

2. 15

1. 2

2. 20

In preparation for this compress time frame we have developed a travel plan to take this into account. A month prior to our construction we will be sending a team of one student and two professionals to Guatemala. As a part of this trip they will purchase materials and arrange all the pre construction details with the village. This includes instructing them where to dig the trenches for the pipeline and the holes for the pressure break tanks. A week before the arrival of the construction team we will send one professional and one student to ensure the delivery of all materials and to carry out preparations with the village and to ensure all preparations have been carried out to our specifications. The week after our trip one professional member of EWB will remain on the group to ensure that any remaining details are worked out in accordance with out plans and designs. If required, the COCODE along with assistance from The Long Way Home (Local NGO) can finalize each tank and the piping network. We have full confidence in their ability to complete the design without our presence as they have been involved in the details of the design up to this point.

The general materials list for the pressure break tanks are provided in Appendix B-8. The specific valves and floats are listed below in the “Operation and Maintenance Plan.”

5.2 Construction Safety Plan

The single safest thing we can do on this project is to simply use common sense. There are no high risk activities required in this implementation (e.g. no high structures, no heights, no electricity, no large excavations, no heavy equipment), but even simple, everyday construction activities can pose a risk if certain common sense precautions are not taken. As such, we will follow the following procedures at all times:

All Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) will be purchased and carried by EWB. 100% eye protection during any activity that could cause flying objects or eye

hazards. e.g. shovels, pickaxes, hammers, mattocks, rebar cutters, rebar benders, all saws, etc.

Minimum 6 foot clearance will be given to operator when an impact tool (e.g. Mattock, hammer) is being used.


100% ear protection during all activities that could cause ear damage. These include using all power tools, hammers, rebar cutters, etc.

All power tool operators will have previous experience with the tool being used. Proper lifting techniques will be used for all heavy lifting (particularly cement bags)

with a required warm up stretch first. High Visibility markers will be employed anytime any work is being done on or

within 10 feet of a street. Have present a safety supervisor who has the responsibility to stop any activity at any

time that is being done in a potentially unsafe manner. Comply at all times with applicable OSHA rules. A member of the travel team has

OSHA-10 certification.

6.0 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN

6.0.A Piping network

Operation and maintenance of the piping system will be carried out by the water board and vil-lage plumber, Don Lucas. The water board will provide organization, funding, and support while the plumber carries out the maintenance procedures. A maintenance and repair guide will be de-veloped to provide the village with written documentation of proper procedures. This guide will be written in simple Spanish and include diagrams to ensure understanding as well as include lo-cation descriptions for various system components. These repair methods will replace current ones in order to improve long-term functionality of the system. Some maintenance activities are as follows.

Inlet pipes, outlet pipes, flow meters, and valves shall be visually inspected at least twice a year.

In the event of broken pipes, a minimum of 2 meters of pipe will be exposed in each di-rection to facilitate the repair section.

Broken pipes will always be repaired with two manufactured couplings and a 'patch' piece of pipe.

6.0.B Concrete tanks

Operation

The new tanks should not impose any new daily operation procedures but will require additional cleaning and facilities to supervise. In the event that a float valve should break, the inlet valve to the tank can be temporarily adjusted to control the flow rate into the tank.

Maintenance


Upon completion of this project, the village of Simajhuleu will assume responsibilities for any maintenance of the system that will be needed. Possible maintenance issues include, but are not limited to:

Cleaning of the tanks. Repair of broken pipeline.

Regular Cleaning and Maintenance (Frequency: At least annually) Tank should be checked regularly for signs of cracking, erosion, or other damage Inlet/outlet pipeline should be checked for signs of damage as well. Before cleaning, tank should be completely drained. Excess water should be swept to-

ward outlet valve. Any solids or substantial mineral deposits should be flushed out before cleaning. Using a 1-10 chlorine/water solution, lightly coat the walls of the tank. Take care to avoid

fumes and wear protective equipment. With a long-handled brush or broom, scrub the walls, being mindful of areas that require

additional attention (particularly dirty areas of the tank).

Replacement CostsPart Hardware Store Location CostValve ¾” FFACSA Chimaltenango Q 80Valve 2.5” FFACSA Chimaltenango Q 481Valve 3” FFACSA Chimaltenango Q 520Float 3/4” FFACSA Chimaltenango Q100Float 2.5” Hidrotecnia Guatemala City Q2000Float 3” Hidrotecnia Guatemala City Q2800

6.0.C Daily Operation Description

As previously stated the three day rotation will remain after this implementation. This rotation will be the only everyday operation required in the system. The float valves will operate automatically to shut off flow into the tanks when they have reached capacity. These will require inspection which the village has taken responsibility for.

We will also be installing flow meters after each tank to monitor the flow into each subsector. Readings will be taken from these meters the day after Water Area C has received water (once every three days). This will go on until we return to the village, approximately 6 months after this implementation. At this time we will determine if additional measurements need to me taken.

We will also be placing three valves after each tank as a part of this implementation. One of these will be used to divide the existing distribution system into the needed subsectors. As a result these valves will not be operated often. These will be temporary until the COCODE and


EWB-UMN is satisfied that our proposed system is functioning properly. At that time the existing lines will be caped to make the division permanent preventing any tampering. This valve will also allow the system to operate as it currently does in the case that we are unable to complete our implementation during the desired period.

The two other valves we will be using are intended for use in the circumstance that there is a severe water shortage or the system requires major repairs. In the case of an emergency the valve below our public tap can be closed. Having the public taps as the only access points allows the COCODE to monitor water use and ensure everyone in the village gets some water. This additional system operation was requested by the villagers and the COCODE for this circumstance If repairs are needed these same valves can be used to shut off the water flow to the existing distribution. Similar to the first valve these two valves will be regularly open and will not require additional operation.

As a part of our monitoring of the flow meters will ask the village to inspect the float valve each time they record data. This will ensure they are working properly for the first six months ensuring that the kinks get worked out quickly.

7.0 SUSTAINABILITY

The project has been designed to sustainably provide Water Area C of the village with adequate, reliable water for many years. To start, the village will pay 10% of the initial materials cost (1,400 US dollars). This payment also gives the village a degree of responsibility for the project and promotes village ownership. In addition, the village has a volunteer water board in place to organize and execute maintenance of the system. This committee collects an equal amount of money ($3.75 annually) from each villager in order to maintain the system. Finally, there is a community plumber, Don Lucas, who will perform any repairs necessary in the event of a leak, break or similar problem with the piping network. For the concrete tanks the president of the COCODE, Esteban, is a skilled mason who has constructed similar tanks in the past.

The piping system itself is very similar to the system that exists within the village. First, the sys-tem will be constructed with schedule SDR 26 PVC pipes, which are designed to withstand the expected pressure. The piping will be placed 18 inches underground to prevent inadvertent breakage due to activity in the area. This depth was chosen to ensure that all substantial above ground activity, such as car and truck movement, will not affect the system given the soil condi-tions. In addition, the village plumber, Don Lucas, and others will be trained in proper repair techniques designed to replace the current, insufficient methods used. A written maintenance and repair guide will be created to illustrate these techniques using pictures and simple Spanish. This manual will ensure villager understanding and serve as a reference guide for future use.

The people of Simajhuleu are familiar with concrete tank construction and operation. These tanks will be considerably smaller than the tank we constructed at the school. The plumber, Don Lucas, is able to repair any leaks or replace any broken pipes as necessary. He, with the water board’s permission, can call on people to aid him in cleaning the pressure breaks. With that in


mind, the people of Simajhuleu already have the needed capacity to maintain these tanks.

Lastly when considering population growth the officials in the village claim the population is actually shrinking in the village as more people move to the cities. Therefore, the sizes of the new pipes provide extra capacity in case any one region of the village was to expand disproportionately.

8.0 COST ESTIMATE

8.0.A Piping Network

Cost Summary: Piping between each Pressure Break Tank and between the Tanks and the Existing Distribution System

Tube length (m) 6

Pipe Diameter Length Unit Cost Tubes Needed Cost Cost in m Q/tube # Q USD

FFACSA, Chimaltenango¾ 314 21 53 1113 142.7

2.5 419 101 70 7070 906.4Ferreteria la Nueva, Comalapa

3 846 157.2 141 22166 2842Piping Subtotal 30349 3891Estimated Delivery Cost from Comalapa 150 20Estimated Delivery Cost from Chimaltenango 550 75Subtotal 31049 398610% Contingency 3105 399Total 34154 $4385Conversion rate of approximately 7.8Qt to 1USD

8.0.B Concrete Tanks

Parts Cost Q Cost USDTank Construction Material X4 23,400 $ 3000Valves 1562 $ 200Floats 6900 $885Flow Meters 15600 $2000Fittings 3900 $500Total 51362 $6585



9.0 MENTOR ASSESSMENT

9.1 Derrick Passe

EWB Minnesota and UM Chapters have been working with Simajhuleu since 2006. Previous assessment trips have surveyed the needs of the Village, measured water flow in the Village, prepared a topo survey of the Village and discussed proposed system improvements with the Water Council and the Village as a whole. In 2009 EWB constructed a rainwater harvesting system at the elementary school to provide a stable water source for 500 students. Subsequent trips have included the completion of the topographical survey of the Village in May. A return trip in September was required due to a Tropical storm that prevented the EWB group to meet with the Village during the second half of the May Trip. The September trip was focused on walking the alignment of the proposed watermain with the Villagers and handheld GPSes. EWB had reached the conclusion that Sector 5 of the Village was most in need of improvements. Measurements of water flow in this sector indicated that more than 50% of the water supply is lost between the central storage tank and users. This information was provided to the Village and, although they expressed doubt as to the quantity lost, they agreed with the approach of installing larger pipe and reduced pressure to increase the water supply to Sector 5. The proposed watermain improvements have been designed by the student chapter with integral involvement by professional engineers. Separate committees have been encharged with design of the different components of the system. These committees are tank design, hydraulic modeling, Plan preparation, education, fundraising and health & safety. Each of these committees have met at the weekly project meeting as well again as a committee. A professional engineer has worked with these groups, including experts in hydraulic modeling (John Chlebeck, Suresh Hettiarachdir), Water Treatment (Mark Arneson), Cad drafting (Ann Johnson, Pete Glashagel, Tony Rochel), Structures (John Buezk) and Fundraising (Mark Ryan, Kris Langlie). The proposed design will improve water delivery to sector 5 of the Village. Reducing the pressure will reduce the leakage in the system, and larger pipes will eliminate existing pipe constriction which account for 10% losses due to the overflows from the central storage tanks. The scope of improvements is unknown due to the uncertainty as to where leakage is occurring in the system. The proposed system alteration will increase the number of points in the system where water use/loss can be monitored.


Index of Appendices

Appendix A: Overview of Simajhuleu

Appendix B: Concrete Pressure Break Tanks

B-1: Professional Engineer Design CheckB-2: Construction PlanB-3: Materials ListB-4: Concrete Mix Design and Instructions

Appendix C: Memorandum of Understanding

C-1: English VersionC-2: Spanish Version

Appendix D: World Health Organization Guidelines

Appendix E: Design Schematics

See attached powerpoint

Appendix F: Gantt Chart

Appendix G: Risk Register and Mitigation Plan


Appendix A: Piping Network

Appendix A-1: Overview of Simajhuleu


Rev.03-2010

Appendix B-1: Professional Engineer Design Check

Appendix B-2: Construction PlanSite Prep

Gather materials and tools o Have supply of water for mixing concrete

Stake out hole location. Dig hole 1.25 meter deep with a 1.2 by 1.2 meter base. Smooth and compact tank area. Grade the floor.

Drains

Dig a trench for the cleaning drain. Dig a run off that will lead overflow away from water away from the tank.

Floor Mix concrete - 1 part concrete, 2 parts sand, 3 parts gravel Construct form for floor. Insure boards are held firmly in place.

Add rebar for support. Should be laid in grid pattern, and should be tied together with wire at intersections.

Insert cleaning drain. Cover trench immediately below the tank. lay 15cm of rocks with a 10cm clearance from the form walls.

The above process should take approximately 0.5 hours to complete. Pour concrete - 10mm reinforcing bars laid in grid pattern separated by 150mm

Immediately after pouring the floor, rebar for the walls should be placed with a bent end in the concrete.

Foundation sections should be poured in same day to ensure even drying

Tamp floor to remove air pockets. Smooth base with long boards.

Pouring and smoothing of concrete will take approximately 2 hours to complete.

Walls Place formwork for walls. Cut holes where outlets will be placed. Begin pouring concrete. Place pipes once concrete reaches the level of the hole in the formwork. vibrate walls to remove air pockets. Provide a 2% grade towards the drain. Once the structure is poured it will take 10-14 days to cure. During that time the structure

should be kept moist. If the structure dries too quickly it can crack. Also, to ensure that it is water tight the sides of the

structure should be roughened and coated with mortar.

Roof Lay formwork for tank top. Pour concrete Vibrate to remove air bubbles.


Valve Box Create formwork to cover inlet pipe. Fill with concrete.

Finalizing Begin mixing mortar 1 part concrete 4 parts sand Remove formwork for base and walls Roughen walls and apply mortar Lay roof onto place


Appendix B-3: Materials List

Materials for Concrete Tank 6 boards, .305m by 1m 6 boards, .305 by 1.5m 4 plywood strips, .30m by 1.22m 4 plywood strips, two of .15m by .75m and one .15m by .9m 6 boards, four of .2m by .75m and two of .2m by .9m 8 boards, each .2m x .6m plywood strips, .31m by .61m 150 nails 16 pieces 8mm rebar, each 1m long (vertical) 12 pieces 8mm rebar, each 1.3m long (horizontal) 25 pieces 8mm rebar, each 1.7m long (base) 12 pieces 8mm rebar, each .84m long 10 pieces 8mm rebar, each .45m 8 pieces 8mm rebar, each 1.5m long 3 pieces 8mm rebar, each .75m long (valve box lid) 2-3 pieces 8mm rebar, each .9mm long (valve box lid) Cooking oil, ½ liter at least 2 or more brushes or rags for applying oil Wire grid, measuring 1.22m by 1.22m. Bend the outside edges of the grid so that when on

the ground, the grid will rest 5-7cm off the ground. Wire grid, measuring .8m by.8m. Bend the outside edges of the grid so that when on the

ground, the grid will rest 5-7cm off the ground. 56 wire form double-loop ties 200 lengths of small wire, 30cm long Float valve Candle wax for sealing pipe threads 12.75 bags of cement (50kg) .8316 m3 of sand 1.260 m3 of gravel

Equipment: 60 Stakes Flagging tape Teflon tape Tarp to cover tank Adjustable wrench 3 flat-edge shovels 5 hammers Duct tape 2 pointed trowels 2 flat trowels 5 equal sized buckets for measuring 5 metal buckets for hauling concrete


level screed board, approx. 3 feet long Plywood for concrete mixing platform, approx. 6 feet by 8 feet Available water for mixing and cleaning Wire brush 2 tape measures wire cutters

Appendix B-4: Concrete Mix Design and Instructions


Appendix C: Memorandum of Understanding

Appendix C-1: English Version


Appendix C-2: Spanish Version


Appendix D: World Health Organization Guidelines


Appendix F: Gantt Chart

Appendix F-1: Gantt Chartt Showing Relationship of Tasks


Appendix G: Risk Register and Risk Management Plans

Appendix G-1: Risk Register

No. Description Likelihood Severity Categories1 Lack of engagment by community H H Community2 Time Over Run M L Project3 Late Material Delivery H H Project4 Worker Availability L M Community5 Weather L H Project6 Cost Over Run M M Project7 Lack of Technical Understanding M M Community8 Cultural Acceptance L H Community9 Cultural Barriers L H Community

10 Community Politics L H Community11 Unable to Financially Buy in H M Community

No. Priority Owner Date Status1 H EWB Oct-10 Planning for2 L EWB Oct-10 Planning for3 M EWB, Long Way Home Oct-10 Planning for4 M Water Board Oct-10 Planning for5 L EWB Oct-10 Planning for6 L EWB Oct-10 Planning for7 M EWB Oct-10 Planning for8 H EWB Oct-10 Planning for9 M EWB Oct-10 Planning for

11 L EWB Oct-10 Planning for12 L Water Board Oct-10 Planning for

Appendix G-2: Risk Management Strategies


No.1 Lack of Engagment by CommunityCausesPoor education campaign. Lack of buy in. The "Americans" effect.

SymptomsLack of community voulenteers. Lack of finacial buy in by the community. System falling into disrepair. Unable to reap all benfits of system and is under performing

Counter MeasuresWell planned and executed education and outreach campaign explaining potential impact of project and what must be done to reap these benefits. Working closely with community throughout design and implementation process they are in agreement with the decisions being made and why they were made.

No. 2 Time Over RunCausesPoor estimation of time required to complete tasks. Materials arriving late. A sufficient number and skilled community volunteers are not available. Weather.

SymptomsChaotic work days where additional help is need. Work days are longer than expected and the schedule cannot be kept up with.

Counter MeasuresTimeline has been planed with community and NGO. By utilizing of expertise within EWB, NGO, and community we should be able to keep the schedule being set.

No. 3 Late Material DeliveryCausesIf we are ordering late because of a lack of preparation the materials may not arrive on time. The supplier may not understand the urgency or just be generally be incompetent. Weather may also become a factor.

SymptomsSuppliers may sound indecisive on their ability to deliver on time. We will be unable to start work on time if materials are not available.

Counter MeasuresThis can be avoided by planning with Long Way Home so they can order supplies with a sufficient amount of time to prepare. Communication with suppliers established ahead of time.

No.4 Worker AvailabilityCauses


Disinterest in the project would result in a lack of motivation to show up. Able bodied men are the family bread winners and will have their own duties or jobs to attend.

SymptomsLess than needed number of community volunteers showing up each day. Tasks are left unfinished at the end of each day due to needing additional people.

Counter MeasuresHaving a long standing partnership with community and water board helps us understand what they are able to provide. It also means that they understand that when we say we need a certain number of people they need to be there. They also understand the need for their presence because the construction schedule planning with conducted with the community.

No. 5 WeatherCausesTropical Storm, Volcano

SymptomsTropical Storm, Volcano

Counter MeasuresBring rain gear.

No. 6 Cost Over RunCausesPoor material quantity estimation during design and assessment would lead to planning to purchase the wrong quantity of materials. Price Changes.

SymptomsBudget over runs.

Counter MeasuresPrices gather over multiple trips to see variance and lowest available price. Accurate mapping.

No. 7 Lack of Technical UnderstandingCausesThe villagers and water board may be unable to understand the reasoning behind designs and design choices.

SymptomsThe community would not conduct system repairs when needed. When system repairs have been conducted they may not meet the requirements of the system. The community would be unable to overcome obstacles to the longevity of the project.

Counter MeasuresBy partnership with water board through alternatives analysis, design and implementation they have


had input into the maintenance of the system and what they are and are not capable of or willing to do. The village currently has a plumber and several trained skilled masons and construction managers who work with concrete and PVC on a regular basis.

No.8 Cultural AcceptanceCausesUnwilling to use new system and the additional repairs, cleaning and work that comes with it. Poor education campaign.

SymptomsIf the village has not bought in they may become lazy and use the system improperly or fail to spend the additional time necessary. The village is unwilling to change behavior and follow through with concepts such as water conservation and water treatment.

Counter MeasuresWorking closely with community throughout design and implementation process they are in agreement with the decisions being made and why they were made. Well planned and executed education and outreach campaign explaining potential impact of project and what must be done to reap these benefits.

No. 9 Cultural an Communication BarriersCausesIt can always be difficult to communicate through language and cultural separation. This can often result in work group segregation which will keep the village and EWB groups from fully integrating.

SymptomsThe working groups will display an inability to work efficiently, make decision and work cohesively.

Counter MeasuresThrough working side by side over the course of several trips an understanding of each other can be leaned upon and previous friendships used successfully. Working closely with community throughout design and implementation process they are in agreement with the decisions being made and why they were made.

No. 10 Community PoliticsCausesThe election of unfriendly water board by the community in the February elections would hamper the sustainability of the project.

SymptomsThe water board is our main point of contact in the village and if we are unable to access them or


they are uncooperative we will no longer have access to the village and its resources.

Counter MeasuresBy developing good relations with the entire community not just the current water board our friends in the village our many and their appreciation of our ability to impact the village is present.

No.11 Community Unable to Financially Buy InCausesThe water board or the village governance may be unable to secure 10% funding from private sources or community.

SymptomsUnable to fund 10% of project.

Counter MeasuresThe ability of the village to supply labor as a last resort alternative to a monetary contribution would still make us comfortable with the about of community buy in. The presence of Rotary International, the Japanese Embassy and other institutions specifically intended for this type of project make us optimistic that they will b able to secure funding.

ewb project: - engineers without borderswiki.ewb-umn.org/images/b/ba/525december19th.doc · web...

Documents