presentation on wamex by zoran vojinovic

7/29/2019 Presentation on WaMEX by Zoran Vojinovic

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/presentation-on-wamex-by-zoran-vojinovic 1/56

Expert System for StrategicExpert System for Strategic

Technologies and Sewer NetworksTechnologies and Sewer Networks

Zoran Vojinovic

UNESCO-IHE, Institute for Water Education,Delft, The Netherlands

1



Institute for Postgraduate Education, Training andInstitute for Postgraduate Education, Training andCapacity Building in Water, Environment andCapacity Building in Water, Environment and

InfrastructureInfrastructure

2



UNESCOUNESCO--IHEIHE

- ’ Ambassador to the Netherlands requests transfer of Dutch expertise inHydraulic Engineering to Bangladesh

1957 Birth - IHE established as an International Education Institute

1991 Transformation - IHE Delft becomes an independent Foundation

- -operational

3



Staff and OutputsStaff and Outputs

160 Staff (80 Academic, 80 Support)300 Guest Faculty

4 Water and Environment Academic Programmes:

- 222 MEng participants )

- 92 MSc participants ) From about 80 countries

-

- 250 Short Course Participants

187 Projects 2010 (Capacity Building, research, tailor made training,advisor services

4



UNESCO-IHE Alumni CommunitConnecting the Community of 1Connecting the Community of 14 4,000 Alumni,000 Alumni

50 - 50 51-150 151-300 301-500 501-850 851-1200



WaMEXWaMEX OutlineOutline

Introduction

Development to date• Treatment technologiesFurther work

• Scenario assessment•

6



IntroductionIntroduction – – Project BackgroundProject Background

ADB-DMC Sanitation Dialog 3-5 March 2009 identified the

institutions and policies,technology options,inancing options,

information,education and communication andeconomics of sanitation

As one of the knowled e roducts, the need for an Ex ert S stemhas emerged with the aim to assist in the evaluation of wastewater management options

7

UNESCO-IHE teamed up with an Asian/Australian partners toundertake the above work.



Objectives of the development work Objectives of the development work

To eve op a too t at ena e ecision ma ers to carry out

“what-if-scenario” at a higher planning (or scoping) level:• • Preliminary cost estimates of WWT technologies and sewer

reticulation works

To develop two separate modules:

• Sewer network evaluation module;

8



End UsersEnd Users

P anners

Operators

9



Work to dateWork to date

Several real-world tests have confirmed that the tool is useful. ., , , ,

correction factors for local conditions, functionalities, scenariobuilder) are ongoing;

Developments are planned through 3 phases (2 nd phase is

complete);Important points:

• The tool is not meant for detailed engineering designpurposes!

• Current technologies are sewer-based with minor septage;

10

• of unplanned events and unanticipated local factors that areal-world job can entail (strengths vs. limitations)!



The team and external inputsThe team and external inputs

UNESCCO-IHE’s HI & Sanitation core teamed u withBeijing Richway Tech & Development Co. Ltd and WorleyParsons Ltd.

Throughout the project comments were received from ADB World Bank IWA and other international ex erts in the field.

11



DSS/ES functional illustrationDSS/ES functional illustration

o e ame:o e ame: a a

Sewers

Integrated Assessment

12

Interface Layer

A hit tA hit t



MCA scoring

Criterion 1Sub-criterion 1.1

Criterion 2

Sub-criterion 1.2

Pareto alternativesx

xx

x

ArchitectureArchitecture

Functional LayerConnectorto external

models

100 90 80 70

Calculation module

SolutionsBuilder

ReportGeneratorPairwise

comparison

Scoring of

alternatives(MCA)

Identification

of Paretoalternatives

Visualization block

User managementand authentication Case management

Data Layer

SolutionsCriteria Constraints Alternatives Technologies

Drainage/SewerageWWT

Support Engines Layer

Maps/Layers Users Cases

13GIS Engine DB Engine



14



Wastewater treatment technologiesWastewater treatment technologies

PollutantsTreatment methodsTechnology selection criteria

Von Sperling’s book and other references

Demonstration of the module

15



MAIN MECHANISMS FOR THE REMOVAL OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Solids Organic matter Nitrogen Phosphorus Pathogens

Coarse•

Particulate•

Protozoa/eggs•

Organic•

Phosphate•

Suspended

• sedimentation

Dissolved

• adsorption• hydrolysis

• stabilization

Soluble

• filtration

Bacteria/viruses• adverse env. cond.• UV radiation

Ammonia

• nitrification• bacterial assimilation• stripping

• precipitation• filtration

• adsorption • adsorption• stabilization

• disinfection• break-point chlorination

Nitrate

• denitrification

Logarithmic scale1st Level: SCREENING

16



TECHNOLOGY SELECTION METHODSTECHNOLOGY SELECTION METHODS

• descriptive documents• checklists

• se ec on ma r ces• algorithms• models

EXAMPLE SELECTION MATRIX: MCA

Selection criteriaWeights

6 8 1 2 4 9 3 5 7 8 9 1 2 0 5

Range 0-10

h n o

l o g

i e

S c o r e s

3 3 0 1 2 4 5 4 3 2 1 0 4 3 2

5 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 4 4 3 3 5 2

3 3 2 4 5 1 3 5 5 3 2 1 5 2 3

Range 0-5 total256

307

T e 2 4 5 1 1 1 5 4 2 2 2 1 1 1 4

1 1 5 4 2 2 2 1 5 4 2 2 2 1 5

2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 2 4 5 1 1 1

xscores

188

399

300

229

17



Criteria for wastewater technology selectionCriteria for wastewater technology selectionLocal conditions

• Climate• Hydrology

Processes

• Process applicability• Removal efficiency

Environment

• Soil pollution• Air pollution

• Footprint size• Land availability

• Resistance/robustness• Sludge generation• Sludge handling/processing•

• Water resources pollution

• Devaluation of area• Inconvenience

Health and Safety Economics

Operation & Maintenance

• Noise• Aerosols• Insects & worms

• Chemicals• Energy• Personnel

• • Reliability• Complexity/Simplicity• Compatibility

• Occupational safety • Land costs• Other resources

18

Social aspects Institutional aspects Political aspects …

• … • … • …



IMPORTANCE OF CRITERIA FOR TECHNOLOGY SELECTION:Perspective of developed and developing countries

HIGH INCOME COUNTRIES LOW INCOME COUNTRIES

Efficiency

Reliability

Land requirements

Environmental impact

Operational costs

Construction costs

Maintenance

Simplicity

19

critical important important critical

COD removal - nitrification plants 3rd Level: Selection at the individual technology level



p(a) Complete-mix activated sludge - CMAS (b) Conventional plug-flow (c) High-rate aeration (d) Step feed

Not In the SCOPE

(e) Contact stabilization (f) Two-sludge (g) High-purity oxygen

(h) Conventional extended aeration (i) Oxidation ditch (j) Orbal (k) Countercurrent aeration system

(l) Sequencing batch reactor - SBR (m) Intermittent cycle extended aeration system (n) Cyclic activated sludge system - CAAS

20

COD and N removal plants – nitrification and denifitrication plants Not In the SCOPE



p p(a) Ludzack-Ettinger (b) Modified Ludzack-Ettinger (c) Step feed

(d) Sequencing batch reactor - SBR (e) Bio-denitro f Nitrox

(g) Single-sludge (h) Bardenpho (4 stage) (i) Oxidation ditch

(j) Two-sludge (l) Orbal(k) Low DO oxidation ditch

21

COD, N and P removal plants - nitrification and denifitrication and Not In the SCOPE



phosphorus removal plants(a) Phoredox (A/O) (b) A2/O (c) Modified Bardenpho (5 stage)

(d) UCT (e) Modified UCT (f) VIP

(g) Johanesburg (h) Phostrip

(i) SBR

22



TECHNOLOGY SELECTION MODULE - DEMO

Selection of technologies in relation to:• Different Effluent Standards• Different Wastewater Characteristics

23



WaMEXWaMEX functional illustrationfunctional illustration – – ReticulationReticulation

Sewers

Decision Function

Optimal Solution

24



Approach undertaken Approach undertaken

Simplified (a library of model runs and the lookup table),-

ses comp ex compu a onsOn line - dynamic simulations

Wastewater SystemWastewater SystemPipe Network ModelPipe Network Model

Data PreData Pre --Processor

Data PostData Post --Processor

Wastewater SystemWastewater SystemPipe Network ModelPipe Network Model

Data PreData Pre --Processor

Data PostData Post --Processor

25

GAGA

GlobalGlobal OptimiserOptimiserGAGA

GlobalGlobal OptimiserOptimiser



Dynamic analysis approach: Tools usedDynamic analysis approach: Tools used

Wastewater SystemWastewater System First Iteration!Pipe Network ModelPipe Network Model

--ProcessorProcessor


Global OptimiserGlobal Optimiser

C2 (surchargerelated damageor overflow spill)

26C1 (Whole asset life cycle cost)

l h l dl h l d




Wastewater SystemWastewater System Second Iteration!Pipe Network ModelPipe Network Model



Global OptimiserGlobal Optimiser



D i l i h T l dD i l i h T l d




Wastewater SystemWastewater System Other Iterations!Pipe Network ModelPipe Network Model



Global OptimiserGlobal Optimiser Dominated Solutions!

Nondominated Solutions!



A ll l i l f h bA ll l i l f h b



A parallel computing platform has been A parallel computing platform has been

Serial approach:Master

Master

Slave 1

Master/SlaveSlave 2

Slave 3

Slave 4

29

Parallel TimeCommunication Time

A ll l ti l tf h bA ll l ti l tf h b



A parallel computing platform has been A parallel computing platform has been

30



ImplementationImplementation

Conventional:separate andcombined

mp e

31

ll



ImplementationImplementation

Known cases: details from several cases available

Unknown cases: details determined using specialised tools

32



Design Parameters

Depend on local conditions and regulations

• Slope• Population density• • Minimum/Maximum Velocity (Self cleaning, water qualityconsiderations, Hazardous gases (security), maintenance,etc .



La out of the S stem

• Based on the local topography.

• Pipes o ow topograp y an roa networ .

LegendSewer Pipes

Natural Streams andRoad Network Derived Sewer Layout

Tertiary Roads

Secundary Roads

Natural Streams



Based on the topography, pipelayout and flow direction.



La out of the S stem

Velocity constraints: 1 to 5 m/s



System profile for a terrain slope of 10%. Steepest part. Maximum

Water Elevation Profile: Nod e 1 - 56 1 2 3 5 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 3 2 4 2 6 2 8 3 2 9 4 5 6 7 8 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6

calculated velocity in the model was 4.1 m/s

280

270260250

240230220

a t i o n

( m )

210200

190180170

160150

E l e

130120110

1009080

70

Distance (m)3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

6050

403020

09/16/1996 16:25:00




System profile for an average terrain slope of 3%. Steepest part. Maximumcalculated velocity in the model was 2.3 m/s

ater evat on ro e: o e - 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 3 2 4 2 6 2 8 4 3 2 9 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6

60

58

56

54

52

( m )

50

48

46

44

42

4038

E l e v a t i o n

36

34

32

30

28

26

22

20

18

16

14

12

09/16/1996 16:20:00

Distance (m), , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,




System profile for an average terrain slope of 1%. Steepest part. Maximum calculatedvelocity in the model was 1.29 m/s

Water Elevation Profile: Node 1 - 56

1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 3 2 4 2 6 2 8 4 3 2 9 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 660

58

56

54

52

50

48

46

44

42

E l e v a t i o n ( m )

38

36

34

32

30

28

24

22

20

18

16

14

09/16/1996 16:25:00Distance (m)

3,800 3,600 3,400 3,200 3,000 2,800 2,600 2,400 2,200 2,000 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0

12



Model simulations



Summary Table for each model



n

ib

aC *i 1

The cost depends on the flow or capacity required

The number of pumps required in the system can be estimated according with the topography andthe slope. Earle et al, 1999.http://www.wateronline.com/doc.mvc/Estimating-Sewer-Costs-A-Mathematical-Model-0001

Flat Terrain (<3%): 1 Pump of 12 l/s per 1.6 Km and 2 Pumps of 6 l/s per 1.6 Km.Rolling Terrain (3-10%) : 1 Pump of 6 l/s per 1.6 KmSteep Terrain (>10%): 2 Pumps of 12 l/s per 1.6 Km and 2 Pumps of 6 l/s per 1.6 Km

References:Farrell, R.P., 1992, Two decades of experience with pressure sewer systems, Journal of the New

R.S. Means Co., 1996, Site Work and Landscape Cost Data, 16 th Kingston, Massachusetts.Environment One Corporation, 1995, Low-pressure sewer systems using environment one grinderpumps, Schenectady, New York.

Simplified Sewerage or Condominial



Simplified Sewerage or Condominialewerage

Simplified sewerage is an off-site sanitation technology that removes all wastewaterfrom the household environment. Conceptually it is the same as conventionalsewerage, but with conscious efforts made to eliminate unnecessarily conservativedesign features and to match design standards to the local situation. Mara et all, 2000.

Key Features

Layout: in-block system , routed through private land, either back or front yards.

Depth and diameter: shallow depths, often with covers of 0.4 m. or less. he minimumallowable sewer diameter is 100 mm, rather than the 150 mm or more that is normallyrequired for conventional sewerage. The relatively shallow depth allows small accesschambers to be used rather than large expensive manholes/chambers.

0.62l



o n a l

y = ‐0.0003x + 0.6002² =

0.56

0.58

.

i e d S e w / C o n v e n t i

S e w

.

0.50

0.52

0.54

C o s t R a t i o S i m p l i f

0.480 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Population Density (inh/Ha)

Based on the Brazil Experience. Thesimplified sewerage alternative isbetween 40% to 50% cheaper thanconventional sanitary sewers.

Costs of conventional and simplifiedsewerage and on-site sanitation in Natal in

.Sinnatamby, 1983

References



[email protected]

www.urbanhydroinformatics.com



Thank ou for our attention! Thank ou for our attention!

DEMONSTRATIONDEMONSTRATION

47



RETICULATION SELECTION MODULE - DEMO

Selection of sewer reticulation network in relation to:• Different Population Density• Slope of Terrain

48

EXERCISE: Wastewater Technology Selection Module



Step 1

Urban area in Malaysia (KL) : 30 HectaresWastewater production per person per day :

roup a ers person ayGroup b) 150 liters/person/day

Group c) 200 liters/person/day

Wastewater source : Group a) Grey water (non-sewer);Group b) Sanitary Sewage;Group c) Combined Sewage;

Design Horizon : 20 years;

49

O&M as % of CI : 3%;Discount Rate : 5%Factors for Consideration : Efficienc Shock Resistance Econom

EXERCISE: Wastewater Technologies Selection Module



Typical Values

BOD5: 54 (15 – 80)COD: 100 (25 - 200)

TotP: 2 (1-3)TotN: 5 (2 – 15)TSS: 10Vol/C: 200 (100 – 300)

50




Step 2

Government is considering to change to Singaporean Stds

What are the implications?

51




Step 3

Government is considering to change to European Stds

What are the implications?

52

EXERCISE: Reticulation Selection Module



Urban area in Malaysia (KL) needs to be sewered :

Ste 1: Measurements

53




Approximate development density :

Step 2: Measurements

54




Terrain slope : 1%

Design Horizon : 50 years;O&M as % of CI : 2%Discount Rate : 5%

Calculate the costs of the following:• Pumps/pumping stations• Conventional sanitary sewer• Simplified sanitary sewer• Combined Sanitary Sewer and Drainage

55




Discuss the findings within your group

and present the conclusions!

56

presentation on wamex by zoran vojinovic

Documents