Water UK Annual Leakage Conference 2012

18th October 2012, Coventry

Relationships between pressure,

bursts and infrastructure life
an international perspective.
Allan Lambert,
Water Loss Research & Analysis Ltd
Leader, 1st IWA Water Loss Task Force 1995-99
IWA Water Loss Specialist Group Management Team
 Audience Participation!
Do you believe that pressure management has
an important role in Asset Management?

influencing burst frequency on mains?

influencing burst frequency on services?

extending residual infrastructure life?

 IWA Water Loss Task Forces
(1995 2009) and Specialist Group
International workshops
2003: Anaheim and Oregon (USA)
2004: Ferrara (Italy) and Marrakech (Morocco)
2005: Australia, Santiago (Chile), UK
2006: Italy, Beijing (China), Macedonia

Water Loss Conferences

Hundreds of freely available articles,
papers, Guidelines using
internationally applicable practical
concepts and terminology
Lemesos, Cyprus, October 2002
Halifax, Nova Scotia, September 2005
Bucharest, Romania, September 2007
CapeTown, S. Africa, April 2009
Sao Paolo, Brasil, June 2010
Manila, Philippines, February 2012
Ferrara, Italy, May 2012
 Pressure Management:
IWA Water Loss Task Force Definition

The practice of managing system pressures to

the optimum levels of service ensuring sufficient
and efficient supply to legitimate uses and
consumers, while:
reducing unnecessary or excess pressures
eliminating transients and faulty level controls
all of which cause distribution systems to leak
unnecessarily
 UK evidence of pressure: bursts
relationships (1994-95)
John May 1994: 16 District Metered Areas Morrison & Lambert 1995: 10 large regions
Mains burst frequencies/1000 conns/year Mains burst frequencies per 100 km per year

40
p ro p e rtie s p e r y e a r

M A IN S B U R S T F R E Q U E N C Y /1 0 0 K m / Y E A R
10
0 0

8 30
1 0

6
e r

20
p

4
t s

10
s

2
u r

0
B

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
0 20 40 60 80 100 AVERAGE PRESSURE (METRES)

Average Pressure (metres)

 International Pressure Management
2001: IWA International Report: Water Loss Management & Techniques
only 10 of 22 countries used Pressure Management to manage water loss
only 1 mentioned influence of high pressure on damages

2003: IWA Water Loss Task Force creates Pressure Management Group
practitioners, consultants, researchers from 10 countries
starts to publish articles, case studies, research into concepts.
Water 21 articles: Oct 2003, Dec 2006, April 2011
Papers at IWA Water Loss Conferences 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011

2012: IWA Water Loss Conference, Manila

525 delegates from 50 countries, 121 presentations
many papers and case studies of pressure management
all saying how pressure management reduces leak flow rates, burst
frequencies, and other benefits
 2004: Gold Coast, Burleigh Heads Pilot Scheme:
Gravity System, 3300 services
Inlet pressure reduced by 30% (72 metres to 50 metres)

Source: Wide Bay Water/ Gold Coast Water

 Reduction of Excess Pressure: 2005 UK example
Source:
David
Pearson

Retrospective analysis effect not identified when PMZ set up in 2001

 Number of Assessed Average % Average

Water 21, 2006

Pressure initial reduction %
Water Utility or Mains (M) or
Country Managed maximum in reduction
System Services (S)
Sectors in pressure maximum in new
study (metres) pressure breaks

Australia
Brisbane
Gold Coast
1
10
4
100
60-90
100
35%
50%
30%
28%
60%
70%
28%
M
M,S

S
pressure: breaks
Yarra Valley M
Bahamas New Providence
Bosnia
Herzegovin
Gracanica
7

3
39

50
34%

20%
40%
59%
72%
M
M,S

S
data analysis
58% M
Caesb 2 70 33%
24% S
Sabesp ROP 1 40 30% 38% M
80% M

Brazil
Sabesp MO

Sabesp MS
1

1
58

23
65%

30%
29%
64%
64%
M
S

S
10 countries,
112 systems
50% M
SANASA 1 50 70%
50% S
30% M
Sanepar 7 45 30%
70% S
23% M
Canada Halifax 1 56 18%
23% S
50% M
Armenia 25 100 33%
Colombia
Palmira
Bogot
5
2
80
55
75%
30%
50%
94%
31%
M,S
S

S
On average, 38%
45% M
Cyprus Lemesos

Bristol Water
7

21
52.5

62
32%

39%
40%
25%
45%
M
S

S
reduction in Pmax
England

Italy
United Utilities
Torino
Umbra
10
1
1
47.6
69
130
32%
10%
39%
72%
75%
45%
71%
M

M,S
M,S
S
produced 53%
USA American Water
Total number of systems
1
112
Maximum
199

199
36%

75%
50%

94%
M

All data
reduction in bursts
Minimum 23 10% 23% All data
Median 57 33.0% 50.0% All data
Average 71 38.0% 52.5% M&S together Source: Thornton & Lambert
Average 36.5% 48.8% Mains only
Average 37.1% 49.5% Services only
Water 21, Dec 2006
 WLTF pressure:bursts initial concepts
and prediction methods, in 2006/07
The straw that

ENT

N
ING
breaks the

SIO
VEM
FAILURE

RE

OAD
RATE COMBINATION OF FACTORS

RO
MO
ATU

OR
C L
CAUSES INCREASED

ND
PER

+C
camels back

FFI
OU
TEM

AGE
TRA
FAILURE RATE

GR
concept
Operating range PRESSURE

For Zones with high

initial Burst frequency
assume average
Slope S (based on
112 PMZs data) = 1.4

On average, a 30% reduction in maximum pressure produces a 42% reduction in bursts

Sources: Thornton & Lambert, Water 21 Dec 2006; IWA Water Loss Bucharest, Sep 2007
 SIMPLE 2006 APPROACH TO IDENTIFY ZONES
WITH GOOD POTENTIAL FOR REDUCTION OF
BURSTS ON MAINS, AND ON SERVICES

DONT mix mains and services data each can respond differently

UARL reference burst frequencies for

infrastructure in good condition:
Mains 13 per 100 km/year
FAILURE
RATE
Comm. pipes 3 per 1000 conns/year
Supply pipes 2 per 1000 conns/year

PRESSURE
Source: Thornton & Lambert, IWA Water Loss Bucharest, Sep 2007
Applying the basic IWA concept Scheme
prioritisation, Bristol Water (2008)
A UK Water Company with 285 District Metered Areas
Initial Burst mains frequency ratio , using Maximum pressure
6.0
Initial burst mains
5.5
frequency ratio > 3
Burst frequency ratio (Actual break frequency/UARL

5.0 used in pressure

control scheme
4.5 prioritisation, in
conjunction with
4.0
service burst
break frequenct)

3.5 frequency ratio, Real

Losses reduction and
3.0
Consumption impact.
2.5

2.0 Average max

pressure = 50 metres
1.5
Average Mains Break
1.0 ratio = 1.5
0.5

0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Maximum pressure mH

Source: F van der Kleij, Bristol Water

Australian WSAA PPS-3 Asset Management Project 2008-11
Framework for targeting Leakage and Pressure Management

Conservation benefits: Demand management

Water Utility benefits: Asset Management, Opex/Capex reduction
Customer benefits: better managed delivery of service

PRESSURE MANAGEMENT: REDUCTION OF EXCESS AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM PRESSURES

CONSERVATION BENEFITS WATER UTILITY BENEFITS CUSTOMER BENEFITS

REDUCED FLOW RATES REDUCED FREQUENCY OF BURSTS AND LEAKS

DEFERRED REDUCED FEWER

REDUCED FLOW REDUCED
RENEWALS COST OF FEWER PROBLEMS ON
REDUCED RATES OF REPAIR
AND ACTIVE CUSTOMER CUSTOMER
CONSUMPTION LEAKS AND COSTS, MAINS
EXTENDED LEAKAGE COMPLAINTS PLUMBING &
BURSTS & SERVICES
ASSET LIFE CONTROL APPLIANCES

Source: WSAA/ 3 phases over 3 years, 3 reports, 10 Guidelines,

WLR&A/Wide Bay Water 3 customised national software, 6 Case Studies
2011 IWA pressure:bursts equation
Anytow n PMZs, Changes in Service Connection Burst
Frequency due to Pressure Managem ent
Before pressure
120
management
Service burst frequency/1000 service

Po, BFo
100

Burst frequency BF
80 Linear
conns/year

60 After pressure
management
40 P1, BF1 Burst frequency
component that
Power varies wholly or
20 partly with
pressure
0 BFnpd Px
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 NPD Burst frequency component that is
Pmax at AZP Point (metres)
independent of changes in pressure
UARL service conn burst frequency
Non Pressure-dependent burst frequency BFnpd if N2 = 3 Maximum AZP Pressure Pmax

Not two straight lines, but a power law

Burst frequency BF = BFnpd + A x PmaxN2
BFnpd = non pressure dependent burst frequency

Source: Thornton and Lambert, IWA Manila, 2012

Example: CICL mains (Sydney Water, large zones)

Substantial
reductions in
burst frequency
have been
achieved for
CICL mains

The improved 2012

prediction equation
gives better
predictions in
individual zones,
and overall
Sources: Sydney
Water, WLR&A
 Brief comparison of IWA and UKWIR conclusions (2011)

Source: WLR&A study for JOAT Consulting

 Assessing value of extension of asset life of AC
mains following pressure management
NPV benefit of extending mains residual life by pressure
management; Interest Rate i = 3%, Discount Rate r = 9% General relationship between
45%
40% Extension EP existing Residual Life RL years
mains replacement cost RCo

NPV benefit as % of RCo

NPV benefit as % of current

35% = 100 x KRL x (1 - KEP), 10 years

extension of residual life EP
30% where K = (1+i%)/(1+r%) years, after pressure reduction
8 years
25%
6 years
Interest rate i%
20%
4 years Discount rate r%
15%
2 years Net Present Value benefit as %
10%
1 year of current replacement cost
5%
0%
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 Calculations use LAPMETCalcs
Residual Life RL (years)
Software, WSAA PPS-3 Project
Cumulative NPV benefit in a PMZ
can be assessed for expected AC
mains replacements in future years.

This example, for AC mains in a

2500 property PMZ subject to
20 metres reduction in max.AZP
pressure, shows NPV benefits
of $256k over 25 years

Sources: WSAA, WLR&A, ILMSS, Wide Bay Water

 Summary
burst reduction by pressure management for mains, and for services, is
now well established and predictable for individual zones

even small reductions of just a few metres can give significant benefits

zone-specific benefits and savings for mains, and for services, can be
quickly predicted using IWA best practice methods with the right data

extension of residual asset life is a further large benefit, and can now be
predicted for AC mains NPV benefits on CI mains are next to be studied

these considerations will have major implications for asset management,

selection criteria for PMZs and DMAs, and future operation and design of
distribution systems

UKWIR has been slow in recognising pressure:bursts relationships, and

even now only acknowledges some of the early (2006) IWA advances

For more information, go to www.leakssuite.com in January 2013