0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

19 Ansichten13 SeitenHenshaw

Aug 13, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT oder online auf Scribd lesen

Henshaw

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)

19 Ansichten13 SeitenHenshaw

© All Rights Reserved

Als PDF, TXT **herunterladen** oder online auf Scribd lesen

Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

Vol. 1(2):21-33

ISSN: 2408-7491

www.pencilacademicpress.org/pppse

(c)2015 PENCIL Academic Press

CIVIL ENGINEERING

Research

comparative analysis

Terry Henshaw and Ify L. Nwaogazie*

Authors' Affiliation

ABSTRACT

Engineering, University of Port Harcourt,

Nigeria.

systems are demonstrated using the failed water distribution

network of Choba Park, University of Port Harcourt (Uniport). Two

networks are modeled as network 1 and network 2. Network 1 is a

theoretical problem solved using WASDIM software based on the

Hardy Cross method; WASDIMPRO software based on the Hardy Cross

method and EPANET- 2 based on the gradient method. Network 2 is a

model of Choba Park (Uniport) which demonstrates two options and

five cases. Results from network 1 are compared on the basis of

statistical method of test of significance and the law of conservation of

energy. For network 1, a comparison of WASDIM and WASDIMPRO

based on a 5% level of significance showed an estimated t-value of

0.4361, which is greater than the critical t-value of 2.78, indicating

that there is no significant difference between them. When WASDIM

and EPANET 2 were compared based on a 5% level of significance, an

estimated t-value of 2.879 which is greater than the critical t-value of

2.78 shows a significant difference between them. Results from

network 1 shows that the gradient method is more efficient than the

Hardy Cross method. EPANET-2 achieves 0% error in 5 iterations,

while WASDIM shows a very slow convergence achieving 11% error

after 7 iterations and 0.05% error after 1000 iterations. The Model of

the existing Choba network (option 2, case 2) shows that 15 m OHT

will be sufficient to improve the water distribution network and it

will take 11 h for the tank to get empty. Including water demand

pattern in the design (option2, case3) improves the time for water to

empty from 11 to 15 h. The OHT when positioned at the highest point

in Choba and modeled as option 1, case 1 shows that 10 m OHT was

sufficient and would take 11 h for water to empty. By including water

demand pattern, option 1, case 2 took 15 h for the OHT to get empty.

The Result for network 2 shows that the reason for the failed Choba

network is as a result of the insufficient over head tank (OHT) height.

It also gives the reason for the failure of the water distribution

network models (WASDIM, WASDIMPRO) based on the Hardy Cross

principles and further shows the gradient method as a more efficient

method to be used for design of water distribution network.

*Corresponding author.

E-mail: ify.nwaogazie@cohseuniport.com,

ifynwaogazie@yahoo.com.

Published: 1st April, 2015.

Key words: Computer software, WASDIM, WASDIMPRO, EPANET-2, water distribution network Analysis, test of significance,

Choba - Uniport.

INTRODUCTION

Increasing complexities associated with water

distribution systems necessitated precise estimation of

flows and pressures in various parts of the system.

Solution of single pipe flow problem was no longer

adequate. Quest for methods that analyze (solve for

flows and pressures) for entire water distribution

network gave birth to the topic water distribution

network analysis or pipe network analysis.

The analysis of pipe networks has long been one of the

most computationally complex problems which

hydraulic engineers have to contend with. The basic

hydraulic equations describing the phenomena are nonlinear algebraic equations which cannot be solved

directly. Therefore all current numerical methods of

solution are iterative, that is, they start with an assumed,

approximate solution that is improved. These equations

are usually written in terms of the unknown flow rates in

the pipes, often referred to as LOOP equations.

Alternatively, they are expressed in terms of unknown

heads at junctions throughout the pipe system (node

equations). The most commonly used solution methods

are: Hardy Cross, Newton-Ralphson and Linear theory.

These algorithms and techniques which are currently in

use are employed in proprietary and commercial

software.

A considerable amount of published materials dealing

with pipe network analyses are available in literature, all

of which cannot be cited herein. However, some

principal contributions of historical interest will be cited.

Hardy Cross (1936) authored the original and classic

work titled Analysis of Flow in Networks of Conduits or

Conductors. In this study, only Closed Loop Networks

are considered with no pumps, and a method for solving

the loop equations based on adjusting flow rates to

individually balance each of the energy equations is

described. Hardy Cross also described a second method

for solving the node equations by adjusting the head at

each node so that the continuity equation is balanced.

A number of subsequent works have appeared which

further describe these methods or computer programs

utilizing these methods (Fietz, 1972; Chenoweth and

Crawford, 1974; Jeppson, 1977). Because the head

adjustments are computed independent of each other,

'Convergence' problems often arises in using the Hardy

Cross method. Subsequent efforts are needed following

Hardy Cross concentrated on developing methods to

improve convergence.

McPherson and Prasad (1965) presented the method

of equalizing storage. An empirical formula based upon

assumptions such as proportional loading is used in the

analysis. The validity of this formula has also been

presents a computer-based automatic design method

which, given a network configuration, will

simultaneously compute the pipe sizes and pumping

capacities that minimize the total cost, while satisfying

the demand requirements. Also, Martins and Peters

(1972) introduced the Newton-Raphson iteration

method to solve water distribution system problems.

This method had much improved Convergence

characteristics and forms the basis for more general

applications (Jeppson, 1977). Works of Williams (1973)

also discussed in details on the enhancement of

convergence of pipe network analysis.

In recent times, lots of works have been done in the

use of EPANET- 2 to improve water distribution

networks, but a comparison to quantify the actual

improvement EPANET-2 offers in the improvement over

the existing design is lacking in literature. The study of

Fabunmi (2010) demonstrates the use of EPANET-2 to

provide effective and reliable water distribution pipeline

network for University of Agriculture, Abeokuta

(UNAAB) campus. Also, a study by Ademiran and

Oyelowo (2013) demonstrate the use of EPANET-2 to

improve existing water distribution networks in the

University of Lagos (UNILAG).

However, the water distribution network in Choba

Park is inefficient and needs to be improved with better

options, so this gives the opportunity to compare and

evaluate the best method of water distribution analysis.

A selection of references considered relevant to this

work as it concerns hydraulics of water distribution

networks are Heafley and Lawson (1975), Lam and

Wolia (1972), Mays (1996;2001), Vance (1979), Shamie

(1974) and Wood (1981).

NETWORK SIMULATION

Conservation laws

The distribution of flows through a network under a

certain loading pattern must satisfy the conservations of

mass and energy. For incompressible fluids, the

conservation of mass is given as:

(1)

Where

Q in and Qout are the pipe flows in and out of the node,

respectively, and Qext is the external demand or supply

at the node.

sum of energy or head losses, hL, minus the energy gains

due to pumps, Hpumps around the loop must be equal to

zero:

hLij

i , jIp

Where:

=

j;

Ip

=

k

=

Jp

=

Hpump, k =

loop.

H pump, k 0 (2)

kJp

Hardy-Cross method

The energy equation for each loop in a water

distribution system must be written to take into account

the direction of flow according to Cross (1936) as in

Equation (3):

Qin, j nK p,i, j Qi, j Qi, j

Number of pumps in loop, p;

Set of pumps in loop, p; and

Energy added by pump k contained in the

Where:

Study area

The study area is the Choba Park premises of the

University of Port Harcourt (Uniport for short, see Figure

1a). The University has three campuses within the radius

of 1.2 km namely Choba park, Abuja park and Delta park.

Each campus has an isolated water distribution network.

However, Choba park has a perimeter of 2,500 m, a land

area of 121 acres and houses four large blocks of hostels,

facilities of Engineering, Education, Agricultural science

and business centres that include banks, canteens and

photocopying outlets.

The perimeter of Choba is bounded by five coordinates

which makes it a polygon of five sides. Any of the five

coordinates such as 40 53 44N, 60 5424.65E is

sufficient to google the map of the study area. The

existing water distribution network of Choba park is

shown in Figure 1b with indications of the existing Over

Head Tank (OHT) position.

n 1

p ,i , j

n = 2 for Darcy-Weisbach Equation; and

Qin, j = direction of flow.

The assumed flows, however, may not satisfy the

energy requirement given in Equation (3). Therefore, the

correction, Qi , j is made to all pipes in a particular

loop, p. To compute Q , Equation (4) is thus, presented:

Q p

p ,i , j

Qin, j

nK p ,i , j Qin, j 1

...................................(4)

n

have positive headloss term K p ,i , j Qi , j while it is of

negative value for flows in a counter clockwise direction.

The Hardy-Cross basically determines the Q p for

each loop separately. Then the flow for each pipe is

corrected using Equation (5):

Qi , j new Qi , j old

The major requirement of this study is to analyze and

report reasons for the failure of Choba water

distribution network, design working options and

recommend the best option which would replace or

improve the existing network.

Achieving this work involved field activities of testing

pressure drops at different points of the existing

network and carrying out a detailed survey to pinpoint

the lowest and highest points. Field works were

complimented with design simulators/methods which

gave the opportunity to select the best simulator for

designing a water distribution network.

0 (3)

pMp

(5)

Gradient method

The method is used to solve the flow continuity and

headloss equations that characterize the hydraulic state

of the pipe network at a given point in time and can be

termed a hybrid node-loop approach. Todini and Pilati

(1987) and Salgado et al. (1988) chose to call it the

"Gradient Method". Similar approaches have been

described by Hamam and Brameller (1971) (the "Hybrid

Method) and by Osiadacz (1987) (the "Newton LoopNode Method"). The only difference between these

methods is the way in which link flows are updated after

https://www.google.com/maps/@4.8960634,6.9077667,17.07z.

Because Todini's approach is simpler, it was chosen for

use in the EPANET software.

The Gradient solution method begins with an initial

estimate of flow in each pipe that may not necessarily

satisfy flow continuity. At each iteration of the method,

new nodal heads are found by solving the matrix

Equation (6) (Luwis, 2000):

AH = F (6)

Where A = an (NxN) Jacobian matrix, H = an (Nxl) vector

of unknown nodal heads, and F = an (Nxl) vector of right

hand side terms. The diagonal elements of the Jacobian

matrix are:

j

link between nodes, i and j with respect to flow. For

pipes:

Pij

1

nr Qij

n 1

2m Qij

Existing

water

distribution

network.

Source

(9)

flow larger than a tolerance (e.g., 0.001), then Equations

(6) and (8) are solved once again. The flow update

formula (Equation 9) always results in flow continuity

around each node after the first iteration.

Computer Simulator

With the stress involved in manual computations;

computer simulators are developed to make work easier,

faster and more efficient. Works of Chan (1972),

Dillingham (1967), Donachie (1974), Robinson (1975),

Nwaogazie and Okoye (1994), and Lewis (2000) have

demonstrated different computer approaches to water

distribution network analysis. WASDIM, WASDIMPRO

and EPANET simulators are discussed in subsequent

sections

WASDIM Simulator

(8)

new flows are found from Equation (9) (Luwis, 2000):

FORTRAN IV, for water distribution network analysis

(Nwaogazie and Okoye, 1994). This program is based on

the conventional approaches of Darcy-Weisbachs

headloss computation and Von Karmans friction factor

the Hardy-Cross type permitting accurate computation

of the head losses and design flows in pipes of various

diameters. It has the advantage of solving both closed

and open loop networks.

Works of Anicho (2008) and Chattel (1995) have used

the WASDIM simulator in analyzing water distribution

networks.

WASDIMPRO Simulator

The WASDIMPRO program is a computer software

written in visual basic.net, for water distribution

network analysis for the purpose of this study. The only

difference between the WASDIM and WASDIMPRO

software is that of the programming language.

Visual Basic.net is a modern programming language

which is also an object-oriented program (OOP) and

event driven program. More recent releases of Visual

Basic continue to move it closer to a true object oriented

program.

In event driven model, programs are no longer

procedural; they do not follow a sequential logic. The

design programmer does not determine the sequence of

execution. Instead the user can press keys and events

occur, which triggers the basic procedures that have

been written.

EPANET- 2 Simulator

EPANET is a computer program that performs extended

period simulation of hydraulic and water quality

behavior within pressurized pipe networks. A network

consists of pipes, nodes (pipe junctions), pumps, valves

and storage tanks or reservoirs. EPANET tracks the flow

of water in each pipe, the pressure at each node, the

height of water in each tank, and the concentration of a

chemical species throughout the network during a

simulation period, comprised of multiple time steps. In

addition to chemical species, water age and source

tracing can also be simulated.

EPANET is designed to be a research tool for

improving our understanding of the movement and fate

of drinking water constituents within distribution

systems. It can be used for many different kinds of

applications in distribution systems analysis.

Sampling program design, hydraulic model calibration,

chlorine residual analysis, and consumer exposure

assessment are some- examples. EPANET can help

assess alternative management strategies for improving

water quality throughout a system.

Test of significance is a statistical tool used to give

decisions to an argument. The procedure involves

selecting a % of significance which is used to test the

argument. The final decision of any argument is tied to

the % of significance used.

For example, if a 5% level of significance is chosen in

designing a test of significance, then there are about 5

chances in 100 that you will reject the hypothesis when

it should be accepted, that is, we are about 95%

confident that we have made the right decision

(Nwaogazie, 2011). The t-statistic was adopted for this

work because of the number of data points, N=5.

Using statistical t-test for comparison of significant

difference with a null (H0) and alternative (H1)

hypotheses as stated:

Ho : all d = 0; there is no significant difference between

the two methods of solving water distribution

network; and

H1 : all d 0; there is a significant difference between

the two methods of solving water Distribution network.

This is a case of two tailed test by reason of the

alternative hypothesis. For the null hypothesis to be

accepted and alternative hypothesis rejected, the

estimated t-value from the data set (simulated results)

has to be less than the critical t value read off from the

percentile values of tp for distribution with a given

degree of freedom (). It is the reverse if the null

hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is

accepted.

Description of networks

The first network (Network 1) consist of a single loop

which is a theoretical example problem from Simon

(1981) to establish significant difference between the

new and existing method of solving water distribution

networks.

The second network which is that of Choba Park

(Network 2) consists of 4 major loops enclosing Choba

park, which shows a failed water network.

Network 1

Network 1 is solved with WASDIM, WASDIMPRO and

EPANET-2 for the purpose of comparison. The network

diagram for network 1 is shown in Figure 2 and input

data in Table 1.

S/N

1

2

3

4

5

6

Pipe- ID

1

2

3

4

5

6

Length(ft)

1000

1500

1200

1000

2000

1500

Diameter(in)

13

8

13

8

13

6

Figure 3. Flow diagram of EPARNET-2 Print out of Network 2 (OHT positioned at highest point).

Roughness

0.0005

0.0005

0.0005

0.0005

0.0005

0.0005

S/N

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

Pipe ID

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

20

26

27

Length( m)

53.5

96.28

53.5

53.5

139.1

53.5

53.5

96.28

115.533

62.4

53.5

62.4

53.5

64.19

56.5

42.79

10

64.2

42.79

Diameter (m)

75

75

75

100

100

75

75

75

150

75

100

75

100

100

75

75

150

100

100

Roughness

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

140

120

Network 2

Williams formula. It solved the network as options 1 and

2. Option 1 solved the network with the over head tank

(OHT) situated at the lowest point of the area (see Map

in Figure 1b) and option 2 solved the network with the

OHT situated at the highest point of the area (Figure 3).

The input data for this network were the pipe lengths,

diameters, elevations and water demand. The pipe types

were selected in accordance with the standards and this

resulted in using uPVC pipes except in areas on high

vibrations.

The demand of water was estimated based on the

World Health Organization demand (World Bank eLibrary, WBL, 2015) estimates and projected for a

design period of 20 years. Overtime, it has been

observed that with a geometric increase in population of

3% yearly, a 20 year design period, population will

increase by 55%, and in the same way the estimated

water demand will increase.

It was on this note that the estimated water demand

for Choba was projected. The demand pattern for the

different nodes were programmed and uploaded to the

program. Offices will not open till 8 am and as such,

EPANET-2 is programmed to start delivering water

based on demand to such nodes. Table 2 gives the

summary of input data.

Based on the analysis, the detailed results are presented

in Table 3, and they comprise of the head or pressure at

each nodal junction.

Statistical comparison of results

The first significant test is between WASDIM and

WASDIMPRO after 7 iterations. From the simulated

results (Table 4) the standard error, Sd and the t-value

are obtained respectively and thus, the test of

significance is actualized. The details of the calculations

are as presented:

From the Table 2, d= Col.3 Col.4; F= dmean of di; N = No

and 2 =

( )2

6.665

= 1168.0158; = 34.176; t =

= 15.284 = 0.4361

reason of the alternative hypothesis, H1 we adopt a two

tail test. The critical value of t or t% sigf, df, for 5%

Node number

1

2

3

4

5

WASDIMPRO

1000

922.76

755.86

904.5

750

WASDIM

1000

903.02

799.26

854.18

750

EPANET 2

1000

999.38

997.78

999.06

997.39

Table 4. T-test analysis between pressure heads for WASDIM and WASDIMPRO.

S/N (1)

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

WASDIMPRO (3)

1000

922.76

755.86

904.5

750

WASDIM (4)

1000

903.02

799.26

854.18

750

di(5)

0

19.74

-43.4

50.32

0

26.66

F^2(6)

44.422225

170.955625

2506.504225

1905.759025

44.422225

4672.063325

N/S

1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5

EPANET 2 (3)

1000

999.38

997.78

999.06

997.39

WASDIM (4)

1000

903.02

799.26

854.18

750

hypothesis is accepted.

Next is the second significant test between the

WASDIM and EPANET- 2 after 7 iterations (Table 5) and

the following calculations for standard error, Sp, and tvalue to facilitate t-test analysis:

From the Table 3; di= Col.3 Col.4; F= di-mean of d

(dmean); N = number of sample = 5; and Mean of d

(dmean)

= 137.43;

9113.1105; = 95.4626; t =

2 =

( 1 )2

1

137.43

= 47.7313 = 2.879

A two-tail test is adopted by reason of the alternative

hypothesis, H1. From standard textbook on statistics

(Nwaogazie, 2011) the value of t% sigf, df at 5%

significance is read off as t97.5,4 = 2.78. Given that t >

t97.5,4 the null hypothesis is rejected.

To further appreciate the computational efficiency of

WASDIM and EPANET-2, we apply the principle of

di(5)

0

96.36

198.52

144.88

247.39

687.15

F^2(6)

18887.0049

1686.7449

3731.9881

55.5025

12091.2016

36452.442

incoming flows must be equal to the sum of all out going

flows at a given node after a number of iterations.

Considering node 2 we performed the following

calculations:

i). For WASDIM after 7 iterations

incoming flow = 18.70 ft3/s

outgoing flow = (4.052 + 12.48) = 16.532 ft3/s

incoming flow outgoing flow

% Error = 11%

ii). For the EPANET -2 after 5 iterations

incoming flow = 19.0 ft3/s

outgoing flow = (7.07 + 11.93) = 19 ft3/s

incoming flow = outgoing flow

% Error = 0%

From the results of the foregoing energy balance

computations at Node 2, it is evident that after 7

iterations, WASDIM records an error of 11%, thus,

iteration continues, while at 5th iteration, EPANET

12

12

10

10

% error

8

6

iteration versus

versus error

error for

for

iteration

WASDIM

WASDIM simulator

simulator

44

22

00

00

1000

500

500

1000

No. of iterations

1500

1500

No. of iterations

is basically so because of the methods the softwares are

based on. WASDIM is based on Hardy Cross method

which requires assumption of correct head values and

this turns out to lower its accuracy, while EPANET- 2 is

based on the gradient method which solves each node as

an equation using Matrix techniques.

Discussion of results for network 1

The test of significance between WASDIM and

WASDIMPro for which a 5% level of significance shows

that 95% confidence was selected, indicated an

acceptance of the null hypothesis because the calculated

t- value of 0.4361 was less than the critical t-value of

2.78. This result shows there is no significant difference

between the WASDIM and WASDIMPro softwares which

agrees with the fact that the WASDIMPro like the

WASDIM software uses Hardy Cross method of analysis.

The test of significance between the WASDIM and

EPANET for which a 5% level of significance was also

used indicated a rejection of the null hypothesis because

the calculated t-value of 2.879 is greater than the critical

t-value of 2.78.

This rejection shows a significant difference between

the two software but does not disclose the best of them.

The estimated error after each iteration process gives

the final judgment of which software is better. EPANET

software presents itself to be more efficient as the

estimated error after 5 iterations is 0%, while WASDIM

shows 11% error after 11 iterations and continues to

reduce until the accepted minimum of 0.05% after 1000

very slow convergence which is one of the major issues

with the Hardy Cross method as discussed earlier.

Results for network 2

Based on the analysis, the detailed results are as

presented in Figures 5 and 6 and Tables 6 and 7, and

they comprise of the head or pressure at each nodal

junction with time. The time is varied for 12 h to observe

the behavior of the network if put to run. A summary of

the results gotten for the two options and 5 cases each

are shown in Table 7.

Discussion of results for network 2

Network 2 is the Choba Park and is represented in

Figures 1b and 3. Figure 1b shows the failed Choba

water distribution network and Figure 3 shows the

network of Choba with Over Head Tank (OHT)

positioned at the highest point. EPANET-2 was used to

model the existing Choba distribution network without a

water demand use pattern and results were summarized

as Option 2, case1.

The results show a negative pressure in the

distribution system which means the 10 m height

existing OHT was insufficient to supply water effectively

to the distribution of pipes. This was the existing

problem as water was unable to get to distances beyond

15 m from the OHT position. EPANET-2 was used to

remodel the system with the OHT height increased to 15

m, but maintaining the existing position without a water

Pressure (m)

10

10

Pressure (m)

11

11

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Time (h)

Figure 5. EPANET-2 output printout of pressure distribution at Note 3 for Network 2.

Pressure (m)

10

9.0

8.0

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Time (h)

Figure 6. EPANET-2 output printout of pressure distribution at Note 15 for Network 2.

case 2. The results showed that 15 m OHT height would

be sufficient to effectively distribute water to all parts of

the network with an 11 h duration before the tank is

empty.

Option 2, case 2 was remodeled by including a water

demand use pattern and the result presented as Option

2, case 3. Results show an improvement in the duration

for tank to empty; it improves from 11 to 15 h. The

survey plan of Choba park shows the existing position of

the OHT as the lowest point. Epanet-2 remodels the

system using the new position of the OHT as the highest

of modeling Choba distribution network with OHT at the

highest point with no water demand use pattern

included. Results show that a 10 m OHT is sufficient with

11 h duration for the Tank to empty. EPANET-2 is used

to remodel the distribution network with the OHT at the

highest point with a water demand use pattern included

and results are presented as option 1, case 2. The results

show a 10 m OHT height with 15 h duration for tank to

be empty.

Most studies in literature have used EPANET-2 to

model only correction of failed water distribution

Node ID

Junc 7

Junc 8

Junc 9

Junc 11

Junc 12

Junc 14

Junc 16

Junc 18

Junc 4

Junc 13

Junc 15

Junc 17

Resvr 2

Tank 1

Demand

LPS

0.40

O.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.38

0.01

0.08

0.01

-88.88

87.92

Head

M

10.49

10.49

10.49

10.50

10.49

10.49

10.49

10.49

10.48

10.49

10.50

10.49

-150.00

10.50

Pressure

M

8.49

8.39

8.69

8.50

8.59

8.39

8.59

8.99

8.68

8.79

8.30

8.39

0.00

0.50

Pump characteristics

Head (m) Flow (m3/s)

OHT

(m)

Filling

time (h)

Time to

empty (h)

Size of

OHT (m)

high point without a demand

pattern

10

11

D=6m

H=3m

150

135

Option 1,

case 2

high point with a demand

pattern

10

15

D=6m

H=3m

150

135

Option 2,

case 1

low point without a demand

pattern

10

Option 2,

case 2

low point without a demand

pattern

15

11

D=6m

H=3m

150

135

Option 2,

case 3

low point with a demand

pattern

15

15

D=6m

H=3m

150

135

S/N

Item

Description

Option 1,

case 1

capabilities in tracing the exact faults in network

failures. In this study, EPANET-2 has been used to model

the failed water distribution network system of Choba

and the reason for its failure is attributed to insufficient

OHT height and positioning of OHT on the lowest point.

It is always important to search the highest spot for

OHT in designing a water distribution network as this is

one of the factors which always results in the least cost

to give excuses for locating OHT at low point, one of the

popular excuses is that of savings on drilling cost when

ground water serves as a source of water supply, but

Garg (1994) in his research has put it to us that the

water table is a reflection of the earth surface, which

indirectly means that, the level at which a driller meets

water on the hill top with reference to the earth surface

is relatively the same level the driller will meet water on

the low land with reference to the earth surface and this

he says is a case of 70 in 100. EPANET-2 print-out of

pressure distributions at Nodes 3 and 15 (See Figure 3

on Network diagram) are plotted as shown in Figures 5

and 6, respectively. The abscissa indicates the time

frame to fill the OHT and equally empties it at the point

of interest. The best network for Choba park is Option 1,

case 2 (OHT height of 10m at the highest point) and this

would save up to 5 m of the OHT height when compared

with option 2, case 3 which is the perfect working

network if the OHT is place on the lowest point of Choba

park (OHT height of 15 m at lowest point).

CONCLUSION

The results presented in this study show the following

conclusions:

1. WASDIM and WASDIMPro are not significantly

different because they are operated with the same

principle (Hardy-Cross method)

2. WASDIM and EPANET-2 can be used to model simple

networks with relatively flat terrains but WASDIM has a

very slow rate of convergence compared to EPANET.

3. The water distribution Network of Choba is a failure

because of the insufficient OHT height of 10 m provided

and positioned on the lowest point in Choba park.

4. EPANET-2 can handle time dependent analysis of

water distribution network showing important features

like time for water to fill and empty the over head tank

(OHT}.

5. The best water distribution network design for Choba

would be to position the OHT on the highest point in

Choba park and provide a 10 m height for the OHT.

REFERENCES

Adam, R. W. (1961). Distribution Analysis by Electronic

Computer, Institution of Engineers, London, pp. 415-426.

Adenrian, A. E., and Oyelowo, M. A. (2013). An EPANET analysis

of water distribution network of the University of Lagos,

Nigeria. J. Eng. Res., 18(2).

Simon, L. A. (1981). Practical Hydraulics, New York: John Wiley

& Sons, Inc., pp. 92-94.

Anicho, C. U. (2008). Developing Supply Scheme for

Oromerueziegbu Village in Port Harcourt City Local

Government Rivers State, Final Year Project of Civil and

Environmental Engineering University of Port Harcourt.

Chan, F. L., and Wolla, M. L. (1972). Computer Analysis of Water

Distribution System: Part I Formulation of Equations, ASCE,

98(HY2):335-343.

Chattel Associates (1995). Water Supply Rehabilitation Study of

Kidney Island; A Consultancy Report for Shell Petroleum

Development Company (SPDC), by Chattel Associates Nigeria

Limited, Port Harcourt.

J. Am. Waterworks Assoc., Jan. pp.20-31.

Choba

map.

Goggle

map,

https://www.google.com/maps/@4.8960634,6.9077667,17.07

z.

Cross, H. (1936). Analysis of Flow in Networks of Conduits or

Conductor, Bulletin No. 286, University of Illinois Engineering

Experimentation Station, Urbana, III., pp. 1151-1160.

Dillingham, J. H. (1967). Computer Analysis of Water Distribution

Systems, Water and Sewage Works, Parts 1-5, Jan. May, pp.

30-42.

Donachie, R. P. (1974). Digital Program for Water Network

Analysis, ASCE, Vol. 100, No. HY3, pp. 393-403.

Fabunmi, A. (2010). Design of an improved water distribution

network for University of Agriculture Abeokuta (UNAAB)

Campus., Unpublished desertation of Department of

Agriculture Abeokuta, Federal University of Agriculture

Abeokuta,www.unaab.edu.ng/ugproject/2010bcfabunmiao.pdf.

Fietz, T. R. (1972). Steady flow in pipe networks by the simple

loop method, Water Research Laboratory Report No. 130,

University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, Oct., pp. 6273.

Heafley, A. H., and Lawson, J. D. (1975). Analysis of Water

Distribution Networks, Proceedings of the Fifth Manitoba

Conference on Numerical Mathematics, University of Manitoba,

Oct., pp. 45-71.

Jeppson, R. W. (1977). Analysis of Flow in Pipe Networks, Ann

Arbor, Mich.: Ann Arbor Science,. pp. 81-89.

Lam, C. F., and Wolia, M. L. (1972). Computer Analysis of Water

Distribution Systems: Part II Numerical Solution, ASCE,

98(HY3):447-458.

Luwis, A. R. (2000). EPANET-2 user manual, Water Supply and

Water Resources Division National Risk Management Research

Laboratory Cincinnati, p. 200.

Martin, D. W., and Peters, G. (1963). The Application of Newtons

Method to Network Analysis by Digital Computer. J. Inst. Water

Eng., 17:115-129.

Mays, L. W. (1996): Water Resources Handbook, New York:

McGraw-Hill Publishers. pp. 1801-18044.

Mays, L. W. (2001): Water Resources Engineering, 1st Edition.

New York, McGraw-Hill Publishers, pp. 409-469.

Mcpherson, M. B., and Prasad, R. (1965). Power Consumption for

Equalizing Storage operating options, Paper presented at the

85th Annual Conference AWWA, Portland Oregon.

Nwaogazie, I. L., and Okoye, D. (1994). Computer-Aided Water

Supply Piping Network Design Model (WASDIM), Nigerian

Society of Engineers, Technical Transactions, 29(4):28-49.

Nwaogzie, I. L. (2011). Probability and Statistics for Science and

Engineering practice, 3rd edition, published by De-Adroit

Innovation, Enugu, Nigeria.

Robinson, P. M., and Rossum, J. R. (1975). Program

Documentation for Hydraulic Network Analysis Computer

Program, California: Water Service Company, June, pp. 105116.

Shamir, Ur (1974). Optimal Design and Operation Water

Distribution Systems Water Res., Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 27-36.

the 17-03-2015

Vance, C. L. (1979). Optimal Design of Water Distribution

Network. J. Hydraulic Div., ASCE, 105(HY1):113-114.

Watanatada, T. (1973). Least-Cost Design of Water Distribution

Systems, ASCE, 98(HY9):131-137.

Williams, G. N. (1973). Enhancement of Convergence of Pipe

Wood, D. J., and Rayes, A. M. (1981). Reliability of Algorithms for

Pipe Network Analysis, ASCE, 107(HY10):1145-1161.

World Bank e-Library, WBL (2015). Water demand from World

health

organization,

(WHO).

http://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1093/wbro/ikp016

?journalcode=wbro). Accessed on the 17-03-2015.