Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics ... Security Deliverables/HSD...Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational

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


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


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


7


KYPIPE LLC





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


12.1 Final Reporting

8


KYPIPE LLC




9


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


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

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Map_of_Kentucky_highlighting_Fayette_County.svg

16


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


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


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


Decision Making

Task 6: Model Calibration

Joe GoodinDr. Lindell Ormsbee


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


Decision Making

Task 7: Quantify Flow and Water Quality Dynamics Through Real-Time Modeling

Dr. Jim UberDr. Dominic Boccelli


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


Decision Making

Task 8: Develop Sensor Placement Guidance

Amanda LothesDr. Sebastian Bryson


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


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


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

Documents

Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics ... Security Deliverables/HSD...Studying Distribution System Hydraulics and Flow Dynamics to Improve Water Utility Operational