Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
1,2
5,6
,,
,,
,,
100%
(1)
(2)
(3)
()* = +, #-
(4)
(5)
(6)
7 1#
[ !]
1000 3600 :
(7)
1200
3.00
1000
2.50
2.00
600
1.50
400
1.00
200
0.50
Production flow
0
31-Oct-2011
level [m]
flow [m 3/h]
800
7-Nov-2011
Distribution flow
Reservoir Level
0.00
21-Nov-2011
14-Nov-2011
1200
3.00
1000
flow [m 3/h]
2.00
600
1.50
400
1.00
200
0.50
Production flow
0
5-Nov-2012
level [m]
2.50
800
12-Nov-2012
19-Nov-2012
Distribution flow
Reservoir Level
0.00
26-Nov-2012
Figure 5: Difference between level based (upper graph) and model based (lower graph) production flow
control
The trend with level based control shows that the
production flow was switched up and down every
day, and that the minimum and maximum flow
values were almost equal to the minimum and
maximum distribution flow values. The trend with
model based control shows a more stable
production flow, with a smaller difference between
maximum and minimum flows.
Table 1 shows that model based control leads to a
83% lower value for the production variation,
calculated with equation (1). Bakker et al. (2013, in
press) showed that treatment performance was
Pressure control
Figure 7 and Figure 8 show trends of the water
demand, the outlet pressure at the pumping station
and the average pressure in the area of both
examined periods.
In the initial setup of the water supply system, a
PRV was reducing the pressure to one of the two
340
700
330
600
320
500
310
400
300
300
290
200
280
100
270
Flow
0
11-Nov-2011
12-Nov-2011
Outlet pres.
260
14-Nov-2011
13-Nov-2011
290
outlet pressur [kPa]
flow [m 3/h]
800
pressure [kPa]
285
280
275
270
265
260
0
100
200
300
Flow [m 3/h]
400
500
500
Distribution flow
Pressure at PS
500
450
flow [m 3/h]
350
300
300
250
200
pressure [kPa]
400
400
200
100
0
31-Oct-2011
150
7-Nov-2011
100
21-Nov-2011
14-Nov-2011
500
Distribution flow
500
Pressure at PS
450
flow [m 3/h]
350
300
300
250
200
pressure [kPa]
400
400
200
100
0
5-Nov-2012
150
12-Nov-2012
19-Nov-2012
100
26-Nov-2012
Figure 7: Difference between static (upper graph) and dynamic (lower graph) pressure control, Pozna area
500
Distribution flow
Pressure at PS
500
450
flow [m 3/h]
350
300
300
250
200
pressure [kPa]
400
400
200
100
150
0
31-Oct-2011
7-Nov-2011
100
21-Nov-2011
14-Nov-2011
500
Distribution flow
500
Pressure at PS
450
flow [m 3/h]
350
300
300
250
200
pressure [kPa]
400
400
200
100
150
0
5-Nov-2012
12-Nov-2012
19-Nov-2012
100
26-Nov-2012
Figure 8: Difference between static (upper graph) and dynamic (lower graph) pressure control, Swarzdz
area
flow [m 3/h]
250
700
240
600
230
500
220
400
210
300
200
200
190
100
Flow
0
23-Nov-2012
25-Nov-2012
180
170
26-Nov-2012
245
24-Nov-2012
Outlet pres.
pressure [kPa]
800
240
235
230
225
220
215
0
100
200
300
Flow [m 3/h]
400
500
214
330
395
475
462
444
306
233
298
373
361
344
+43%
-29%
-25%
-22%
-22%
-23%
Swarzdz area
Flow [m3/h]
Outlet [kPa]
MP1 [kPa]
MP2 [kPa]
MP3 [kPa]
MP4 [kPa]
MP5 [kPa]
MP6 [kPa]
Area avg. [kPa]
261
279
470
516
439
365
329
381
417
267
233
422
452
390
318
281
337
367
+2%
-16%
-10%
-12%
-11%
-13%
-14%
-12%
-12%
43,500
225,000
68,500
337,000
3,750
13,550
4,200
21,500
CONCLUSION
The implementation of the production flow control
and the dynamic pressure control modules of the
OPIR software at WTP Gruszczyn, resulted in a
more constant production flow and a reduction of
the pump pressure of the clear water pumps. The
project has led to considerable savings in the
operational costs by the reduced energy
consumption (337,000 kWh per year, or 21,500
per year). The project has shown that extra
information from the distribution network (from nine
new pressure measuring points) in combination
with advanced control software led to a more
efficient water supply system.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The project is financially supported by the Dutch
government through the Partners for Water
programme. The project was implemented by Royal
HaskoningDHV the Netherlands, supported by
water utility Oasen (the Netherlands), water utility
Aquanet (Poland) and Royal HaskoningDHV
Poland.
REFERENCES
Abdel Meguid, H., Skworcow, P., and Ulanicki, B.
(2011). "Mathematical modelling of a
hydraulic controller for PRV flow
modulation". Journal of Hydroinformatics.
13 (3): 374-389.
Aquanet. 2012. Annual report 2011.
Araujo, L.S., Ramos, H., and Coelho, S.T. (2006).
"Pressure control for leakage minimisation
in water distribution systems management".
Water Resources Management. 20 (1):
133-149.
Bakker, M., Van Schagen, K., and Timmer, J.
(2003). "Flow control by prediction of water
demand". Journal of Water Supply:
Research and Technology - AQUA. 52 (6):
417-424.
Bakker, M., Vreeburg, J.H.G., Palmen, L.J.,
Sperber, V., Bakker, G., and Rietveld, L.C.
(2013, in press). "Better water quality and
higher energy efficiency by using model
predictive flow control at water supply
systems". Journal of Water Supply:
Research and Technology - AQUA.
Bakker, M., Vreeburg, J.H.G., Rietveld, L.C., and
Schagen, K.M. (2013, submitted). "Short
term water demand forecasting with a
general adaptive model". Journal of
Environmental Modelling and Software.