Water Distribution Systems

• US 20110191267A1
• Filed: 05/19/2009
• Published: 08/04/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 05/19/2008
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: University of Exeter
• Original Assignee: University of Exeter
• Inventors: Kapelan, Zoran, Awad, Hayham, Vamvakeridou-Lyroudia, Lydia, Morley, Mark, Savic, Dragan, Bicik, Josef
• Application Number:
  US12/993,461
• Publication Number:
  US 20110191267A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/412
• CPC Class Codes: E03B 7/02 Public or like main pipe systems
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 50/06 Energy or water supply
• CPC Class Codes: Y02A 20/00 Water conservation; Efficient water supply; Efficient water use

Abstract

A method for use in the design of a water distribution by determining whether to locate a pressure reducing valve (PRV) in a given location.

Claims

1. A method for use in the design of a water distribution by determining whether to locate a pressure reducing valve (PRV) in a given location comprising the steps of:

(a) determining the benefit arising from reduced water leakage achieved by locating a PRV in that location;

(b) determining the benefit arising from reduced pipe burst frequency achieved by locating a PRV in that location;

(c) determining the benefit arising from at least one other parameter achieved by locating a PRV in that location;

(d) determining the cost associated with locating a PRV at that location;

(e) calculating a net benefit value using the benefits and costs determined in steps (a) to (d); and

(f) locating a PRV in that location if the calculated net benefit value exceeds a predetermined value.

2. A method according to claim 1, further comprising the step of repeating steps (a) to (f) of the method for a series of different locations, to determine a most appropriate one of the locations in which to install the PRV.

3. A method according to claim 1 or claim 2, further comprising the step of repeating steps (a) to (f) of the method for a series of different types of PRV, to the relative merits of a series of different types of PRV, and hence to determine which type of PRV to install at a given location.

4. A method according to claim 3 and used to determine whether a fixed-setting, time or flow modulated PRV is best suited for use in the given location.

5. A method according to any of the preceding claims, wherein the at least one parameter comprises one or more parameters selected from a list including pressure-sensitive demand reductions, direct energy savings, reductions in active leakage control effort, reductions in customer contacts, indirect water savings and indirect energy savings.

6. A method according to claim 5, wherein all of the listed parameters are taken into account in calculation of the net benefit value.

7. A method according to claim 6, wherein the step of calculating the net benefit value involves calculation of:

F=CLW+CBR+CDR+CDE+CAL+CCC+CIW+CIE−

CPRV,

where F=net benefit of introducing pressure reduction (£

/year);

CLW=benefit from reducing water leakage (£

/year);

CBR=benefit from reducing pipes'"'"' burst frequency (£

/year);

CDR=pressure-sensitive demand reduction benefit (£

/year);

CDE=benefit from direct energy saving (£

/year);

CAL=benefit from reducing active leakage control effort (£

/year);

CCC=benefit from reducing customer contacts (£

/year);

CIW=benefit from indirect water saving (£

/year);

CIE=benefit from indirect energy saving (£

/year); and

CPRV=annual cost of installing and/or operating all pressure reducing valves (£

/year). The values of these parameters may be derived in a number of ways, and specific examples of ways of deriving them are set out hereinafter.

8. A design system for use in designing a water distribution by determining whether to locate a pressure reducing valve (PRV) in a given location the system comprising a computer system programmed to perform the method of any of the preceding claims.

9. A control method for use in the evaluation of faults, the method comprising the steps of:

(a) receiving a fault notification;

(b) determining from the fault notification a series of potential causes of the notified fault;

(c) determining, for each potential cause, an impact evaluation;

(d) aggregating the impact evaluations for each potential cause to derive an importance indication for the notified fault.

10. A method according to claim 9, wherein the step of determining an impact evaluation for each potential cause includes determining the likelihood of that potential cause being the actual cause giving rise to the fault notification.

11. A method according to claim 9 or claim 10, wherein the impact evaluation is dependent upon the type and/or number of customers affected by the notified fault.

12. A method according to any of claims 9 to 11, wherein the importance indication is used to determine how quickly the notified fault requires a response.

13. A method according to any of claims 9 to 11, wherein the importance indication is used to determine a priority or order in which a series of notified faults should be investigated.

14. A method according to any of claims 9 to 11, wherein the importance indication is used to determine the effects of various solutions to a reported fault.

15. A system for use in the evaluation of potential faults embodying the method of any of claims 9 to 14.