studying distribution system hydraulics and flow dynamics ... security deliverables/hsd...studying...
TRANSCRIPT
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY (Principal Investigator)Lexington, Kentucky
Lindell Ormsbee, Sebastian Bryson, Scott Yost
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI (Collaborating University)Cincinnati, Ohio
Jim Uber, Dominic Boccelli
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI (Collaborating University)Columbia, Missouri
Robert Reed, Enos Inniss
WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY (Collaborating University)Bowling Green, Kentucky
Andrew Ernest 1
2
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Project Overview: Lindell Ormsbee
Project Goal• To assist water utilities in improving the
operation of their water distribution systems through a better understanding of the impact of water distribution system hydraulics and flow dynamics on operational decision making:
– Normal operations
– Emergency operations
• Natural events
• Man made events
3
Knowledge ToolsResearch
Water Distribution System Operations Hierarchy
4
Project Tasks
• [1] Establishment of Advisory Board
• [2] Select Utility Partners
• [3] Survey and Evaluate SCADA Systems
• [4] Physical Model Development
• [5] Graphical Flow Distribution Model
• [6] Model Calibration
• [7] Real Time Modeling
• [8] Sensor Placement
• [9] Operational Toolkit
• [10] Technology Deployment
5
Project Milestones – Year 1Milestone # Devlierable
0 Execution of Contract: Initial first milestone payment to begin project
1.1 Advisory Board mission Statement
1.2 Advisory Board Guidance Document
2.1 Memoranda of Understanding
4.1 Physical Model Design
3.1 Utility Survey
4.2 Physical Model Construction Report
6.1 Utility Partner Data Report
6.3 Sampling QAPP
11.3 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
6
University of Missouri
KYPIPE LLC
University of Cincinnati
Western Kentucky University
University of Kentucky
Project Milestones – Year 2Milestone # Devlierable
4.3 Physical Model Construction Report
6.2 Hydraulic Calibration Report
7.1 Water Quality / Flow Dynamic Data Analysis
6.4 Water Quality Calibration Report
5.1 Graphic Flow Distribution Model
9.1 Template of the Operational Toolkit
8.1 Water Distribution System SCADA Assessment Report
9.2 Beta Version of Operational toolkit
1.4 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
7
University of Missouri
KYPIPE LLC
University of Cincinnati
Western Kentucky University
University of Kentucky
Project Milestones – Year 3Milestone # Devlierable
7.2 Water Quality / Flow Dynamic Sensitivity Report
8.2 Sensor Placement Guidance Report
10.1 Toolkit Evaluation Report
11.1 Toolkit Validation Report
11.2 Advisory Board Toolkit Assessment Report
11.3 Final Operation Toolkit
1.5 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes
12.1 Final Reporting
8
University of Missouri
KYPIPE LLC
University of Cincinnati
Western Kentucky University
University of Kentucky
9
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 1: Establishment of Advisory Board
Advisory Board• DHS Water Sector (John Laws)
• USEPA NHSRC (Robert Janke)
• USEPA Water Security Division (Katie Umberg)
• Kentucky Division of Water (Terry Humphries)
• American Water Company (Nick Santillo)
• (3) Large Water Utilities
– NKYWD (Amy Kramer)
– Louisville (Jim Brammell)
– Denver (Arnold Stasser)
• (1) Medium Sized Water Utility – Nicholasville KY (Tom Calkins)
• (1) Small Water Utility – Paris KY (Kevin Crump)
• Sandia Laboratory (William Hart)
• ATSDR (Morris Maslia)
• University of Louisville (Jim Graham)
• KY/TN AWWA (Mike Bethurem)
• ERDC-CERL-IL (Mark Ginsberg)10
Advisory Board Mission
• Facilitate interaction with the water sector
• Provide input on project
– Goals
– Objectives
– Deliverables
11
[1] Deliverable 1.1 Advisory Board Mission Statement (100%)
Advisory Board Guidance
• Review project:
– Goals
– Objectives
• Provide feedback and suggestions:
– Project tasks
– Project deliverables
12
[1] Deliverable 1.2 Advisory Board Guidance Document (100%)
13
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Tasks 2: Select Utility Partners
Utility Partners• Large Water Utilities
– NKYWD (Amy Kramer) – 28.2 MGD*
– Louisville (Jim Brammell)
– Denver (Arnold Strasser)
• Medium Sized Water Utilities– Nicholasville KY (Tom Calkins) – 4.4 MGD
– Richmond KY (Danny Pearson) – 6.3 MGD
• Small Water Utility– Paris KY (Kevin Crump) – 1.8 MGD
– Berea KY (Donald Blackburn) – 2.9 MGD* Average Daily Demand
14
[1] Milestone 2.1 Memoranda of Understanding (100%)
Utility Partners
15
Paris
Berea
RichmondNicholasville
NKYWD
LWC
16
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 3: Survey and Evaluate SCADA Systems
Dr. Robert Reed, University of MissouriDr. Enos Inniss, University of Missouri
Task 3: Survey & Evaluate SCADA Systems• Implementation of real-time model requires
SCADA interface. This will first require:– Determining:
• types of water SCADA systems currently used
• number of operational SCADA systems employed
• location & number of SCADA systems utilizing a water distribution model to supplement operations
• how SCADA systems are utilized for operational, security and/or incident response management
– Identifying the spectrum of current mgt use of SCADA data that will contribute to the toolkit development
– Assessing the extent of SCADA data use in mgt decisions
17
[1] Deliverable 3.1 Utility Survey (80%)[2] Deliverable 3.2 Water Distribution System SCADA Assessment Report
Survey Preparations
• Drafted questions
• Consulted technical survey specialist
• Transcribed questions into On-Line survey tool (Qualtrics)
• Requested & received review input, incorporated
• After a 4 month hold on the survey, DHS decided can only survey 9 utilities
18
Request Advisory Board Input
• Anticipate differences in use based on utility size
• Had planned to survey
– Less than 10,000 customers
– Between 10,000 and 100,000 customers
– Greater than 100,000 customers
• Could survey 3 utilities each in MO, OH, KY
• Could survey 9 utilities regardless of size
• Advisory Board input?
19
20
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 4: Physical Model DevelopmentMatt Jolly
Dr. Scott Yost University of Kentucky
Network and sensing equipment
Data Acquisition Location
Expanded View
Power Supply
WORK STATUS
• Data Acquisition unit fully completed.
• Lab view “Virtual Instrument” programming setup.
• Currently: planning experiment design and calibration.
WORK IN PROGRESS
• Plan for experimental design, calibration of equipment and identify sources/types of uncertainties.
• Calibrate physical model results with KY pipe model. Run statistical analysis.
• Quantify the relationship between CaCL2 concentration to sensors for physical model simulations.
[1] Deliverable 4.1 Physical Model Design Report (100%)[1] Deliverable 4.2 Physical Model Construction Report (100%)[2] Deliverable 4.3 Physical Model Analysis Report
25
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 5: Graphical Flow Distribution Model
Ben AlbrittonDoug Wood, KYIPIPE LLC
Dr. Lindell Ormsbee University of Kentucky
Task 5: Graphical Flow Distribution Model Use readily available network data
from the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority website to build network model of selected system.
Provide ability to add pipes or nodes.
Provide total system demand and distribute demands among nodes.
Input pump station discharge and tank levels and visualize flows and flow distribution.
Provide access to data via table functions.
GIS Datasets
Graphical Flow
Distribution Model
KYPIPE, EPANET, etc
26*2+ Deliverable 5.1 Graphical Flow Model and User’s Manual (50%)
27
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 6: Model Calibration
Joe GoodinDr. Lindell Ormsbee
University of Kentucky
Hydraulic Calibration
• Nicholasville
– Performed 10 C-Factor and 10 FF tests (Oct/Nov)
– Obtained SCADA data
– Currently working in KYPIPE to calibrate model
• Paris
– Obtained demand data
– Have an uncalibrated model of the system
– C-Factor and FF tests planned for summer
28
Water Quality Calibration
• Sampling Sites
– Determined using Hydraulic/Water Quality Model
– Hydrants
– Taps
• Testing
– Field Test using Fluoride Colorimeter
– Laboratory Testing at UK
[1] Deliverable 6.2 Sampling QAPP (100%)
[2] Deliverable 6.3 Hydraulic Calibration Report (Nicholasville and Paris Systems) (40%)
[2] Deliverable 6.4 Water Quality Calibration Report (Nicholasville System) (10%)
29
30
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 7: Quantify Flow and Water Quality Dynamics Through Real-Time Modeling
Dr. Jim UberDr. Dominic Boccelli
University of Cincinnati
TASK 7 – QUANTIFY FLOW AND WATER QUALITY DYNAMICS THROUGH REAL-TIME MODELING
• Sub-Task 1: Water Quality and Flow Dynamics Data Analysis– Report describing the operational SCADA system
for the large utility (Northern Kentucky Water District) along with an analysis of the historical database
• Objective: Analyze the ability of real-time network models to represent hydraulic variability as expressed through existing SCADA data
Current Status• Epanet-RTX
– Final stages of being completely re-factored
– Jointly supported by NIHS and USEPA
– Object library for building realtime network modeling environments
– Support for water quality modeling
– Support for automated pump head-discharge curve estimation
• Application to NKWD– NKWD personnel provided
updated model information (demands, tank V-H curves, pump curves, pipeline infrastructure)
• On schedule for deliverable due September 1, 2012 (417 DAC)
Discussion of Findings
• Automated capabilities build into RTX to improve network model predictions– Pump head-discharge curves
are uncertain– SCADA data available to re-
calibrate H-Q curves– Automated algorithms
based on recursive least squares
– Handles any type of pump station and pumping combination using SCADA pump status information
Anticipated Results
Pilot Utility:Northern Kentucky Water District
• Data analysis to evaluate the realtime model ability to represent actual system variability, through comparision with SCADA data– Application to NKWD with updated
model information– Update H-Q curves directly from
SCADA– Estimate realtime zone demand
from SCADA– Incorporate actual system
operational status from SCADA– Analysis of extensive historical
record– Statistical summary of data and
model variability, as well as model predictive accuracy ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
0 10 20 30 40
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Max
imu
m C
orr
elat
ion
RMSE
Task 7 – Quantify Flow and Water Quality Dynamics
• Sub-Task 2: Perform Sensitivity Analysis Comparing SCADA Results– Reports summarizing the results of the detailed
analysis comparing SCADA data with calibrated hydraulic/water quality model predictions, and assessment the impacts on water quality from network flow dynamics
• Objective: perform a field-scale tracer and pressure monitoring study to evaluate the ability of the real-time model to represent hydraulic and water quality transport variability
Current Status
• Early phases of developing a field test plan for network evaluation– Additional pressure monitoring– Conservative salt tracer
• Coordinating with Northern Kentucky Water District on:– General injection strategy
• Tracer chemical (calcium chloride)• Regulatory considerations (secondary MCL for Cl-)
– Monitoring station design and operation– Study time frame (Sep – Oct 2012)– Anticipated utility requirements
• Phase I tracer study design to be delivered to Northern Kentucky by end of April, 2012
• On schedule for deliverable due January 1, 2013 (543 DAC)
Anticipated Field Monitoring Study
• Proposed tracer study discussions included– Up to six individual injection pulses
within a 24-hour period– Repeated studies at each of the
three distribution system sources– Monitoring via conductivity meters
designed for field-scale studies– Monitoring selection to be based
on multiple criteria, such as, • Maximizing observed travel paths• Representation of estimated
hydraulic residence times
• Possible obstacles– Securing injection pumps and
additional monitoring equipment– Kentucky DOW approval of plan– Funding
FR Water AgeLocations (hours)
FR-1 6.79FR-2 4.87FR-3 13.01FR-4 17.66FR-5 21.54FR-6 28.30
Time from Start of Tracer (hours)
0 5 10 15 20 25
Cond
uctivity (
S/c
m)
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Flu
ori
de (
mg/L
)
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
Col 5 vs Col 6
Col 8 vs Col 9
Conductivity
Fluoride
TRACER INJECTION PERIOD
Examples from Previous Studies
Co
nd
uctivity (
S/c
m)
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Elapsed Time (d)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Co
nd
uctivity (
S/c
m)
300
400
500
600
700
800
900Modeled
Observed
Anticipated Results• Tracer studies will provide an
opportunity to– Demonstrate ability of current
model to represent water quality transport characteristics• Hydraulics paths and residence times
– Quantify the benefit of real-time capabilities and/or water quality data/types for improving modeling capabilities
– Assess real-time security applications, including• Model-based event detection, and • Source identification algorithms
Co
nd
uctivity (
S/c
m)
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Elapsed Time (d)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Co
nd
uctivity (
S/c
m)
300
400
500
600
700
800
900Modeled
Observed
Cl 2
Concentr
ation
Diffe
rence(m
g/L
)
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0.0
0.1
Cl 2
Concentr
ation
(mg/L
)
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
"True" Chlorine
Estimated Chlorine
Time (hr)
Lo
g L
ike
liho
od
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
Time (hr)
600 650 700 750 800 850
Lo
g L
ike
liho
od
-10
-5
0
5
-10
-5
0
5
39
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 8: Develop Sensor Placement Guidance
Amanda LothesDr. Sebastian Bryson
University of Kentucky
Task 8• Task 8a:
Develop general guidance for small/medium sized utilities
–Water Quality Sensor Placement
–Allow smaller utilities access to guidance for sensor placement without the necessity of running TEVA-SPOT for their system
40
Sensor Placement Guidance Development Process
• Model small and medium distribution systems in three different spatial configurations: loop, grid, and branch.
• Run TEVA-SPOT on systems and observe patterns of sensor placement and correlate with system characteristics.
• Develop general rules for sensor placement.
• Make predictions for sensor placement on new systems.
• Run TEVA-SPOT on systems to confirm that guidance recommends similar sensor placement design.
41[2] Deliverable 8.1a General Sensor Placement Guidance Report (25%)
Status• A database of 12 models
developed for testing purposes- realistic models from real systems- systems between 1-3 MGD
• Systems evaluated in TEVA-SPOT- 3 different objectives- flow characteristics and physical characteristics of sensor locations evaluated
42
Anticipated Research
• TEVA-SPOT determines sensor placement for water quality sensor purposes, but it does not consider objectives related to placement of hydraulic sensors in order to obtain useful information about network hydraulic dynamics.
• Task 8b: Develop general guidance for large utilities– Water Quality Sensor Placement
• General operations• Real time model support
– Hydraulic Sensor Placement• Real time model support
43
44
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 9: Operational Toolkit
Andrew ErnestWestern Kentucky University
Semantic Knowledge Development
Task 3 Utility Survey
Task 4 Physical Model
Task 6 Model
Calibration
Task 7 Flow
Dynamics
Task 8 Sensor
Placement
If………………… Then……………………. Rules
45
Rules-Based Decision Support Tool
FACTS (e.g. sensor status)
Rule Database: Collection of unsorted /unlinkedRules (e.g. IF_____ THEN______)
HYPOTHESIS(e.g. incursion event)
Inference Engine: Software that examines database so as to find
links between FACTS and HYPOTHESES
Knowledge Development(e.g. interview experts)
Forward Chaining
BackwardChaining
What facts arerequired to support a given hypothesis?
What hypothesisis supported by the given facts?
What are the rulesbeing used to supporta final conclusion (e.g. required facts or hypothesis?)
46
Operational Toolkit
47
Tasks 9: Operational ToolkitWater Distribution System Operational Toolkit
Rule Based Decision Support Tool (RBDST)
Graphical Flow Distribution Model
Guidance Rules GIS Datasets
KYPIPE
48
[2] Deliverable 9.1 Template of the Operational Toolkit (25%)[2] Deliverable 9.2 Beta Version of Operational Toolkit
49
Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational
Decision Making
Task 10&11: Technology Deployment
Lindell OrmsbeeUniversity of Kentucky
Andrew ErnestWestern Kentucky University
Task 10&11: Technology DeploymentWorkshop ImplementationDemonstration
Feedback Revisions Feedback Revisions
50
[3] Deliverable 10.1 Toolkit Evaluation Report[3] Deliverable 11.1 Toolkit Validation Report[3] Deliverable 11.2 Advisory Board Toolkit Assessment Report[3] Deliverable 11.3 Final Operational Toolkit[3] Deliverable 12.1 Final Report
Final Comments and Questions
51