gis projects for civil engineeing students

Environmental Modelling & Software Volume 22, Issue 7, July 2007, Pages 951965

IRA-WDS: A GIS-based risk analysistool for water distribution systems

K. Vairavamoorthya, b, , [Author Vitae], Jimin Yana [Author Vitae], Harshal M. Galgalea [Author Vitae], Sunil D. Gorantiwara [Author Vitae]
a

Department of Civil and Building Engineering, Loughborough University, LE11 3TU, UK b Department of Urban Water and Sanitation, UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, P.O. Box 3015, 2601 DA, Delft, The Netherlands Received 16 June 2005. Revised 30 March 2006. Accepted 30 May 2006. Available online 13 December 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2006.05.027, How to Cite or Link Using DOI Cited by in Scopus (6) Permissions & Reprints

Abstract

This paper presents the development of a new software tool IRA-WDS. This GIS-based software predicts the risks associated with contaminated water entering water distribution systems from surrounding foul water bodies such as sewers, drains and ditches. Intermittent water distribution systems are common in developing countries and these systems are prone to contamination when empty. During the non-supply hours contaminants from pollutionsources such as sewers, open drains and surface water bodies enter into the water distribution pipes through leaks and cracks. Currently there are no tools available to help engineers identify the risks associated with contaminant intrusion into intermittent water distribution systems. Hence it is anticipated that IRA-WDS will find wide application in developing countries. The paper summarises the details of the mathematical models that form the basis of IRA-WDS. It also describes the software architecture, the main modules, and the integration with GIS using a tight coupling approach. A powerful GUI has been developed that enables data for the models to be retrieved from the spatial databases and the outputs to be converted into tables and thematic maps. This is achieved seamlessly through DLL calling functions within the GIS. This paper demonstrates the application of the software to a real case study in India. The outputs from IRA-WDS are risk maps showing the risk of contaminant intrusion into various parts of the water distribution system. The outputs also give an understanding of the main factors that contribute to the risk.

Keywords

Water supply; Risk assessment; Contaminant intrusion; Developing countries; Intermittent water supply; GIS; Tight coupling

1. Introduction
Contamination of drinking water due to exposure to biological and chemical pollutants is a major cause of illness and mortality. Recent evidence has demonstrated that external contaminant intrusion into a water distribution network may be more frequent and of a greater importance than previously suspected (LeChevallier, 1999). The problem of external contaminant intrusion is more aggravated in developing countries where the pollutionsources crisscross with water distribution systems and intermittent water supplies are prevalent ( [Choe and Varley, 1997], [Seckler et al., 1998] and [Rosegrant et al., 2002]). A serious problem arising from intermittent supplies, which is generally ignored, is the associated high level of contamination which occurs in networks where there are prolonged periods of interruption of supply due to negligible or zero pressure in the system. Such problems lead to increased health risks as water becomes contaminated with pathogens due to the intrusion from surrounding foul water bodies (e.g. sewers, ditches), through joints and cracks in the

deteriorated water distribution pipes. Hence in developing countries the distribution network has become a point at which contamination frequently occurs to unacceptably high levels, posing a threat to public health ( [Swerdlow et al., 1992] and [Besser et al., 1995]). Currently there are no software tools available to help engineers identify the risks associated with contaminant intrusion into intermittent water distribution systems. The need for such tools has resulted in the development of the Improved Risk Assessment of Water Distribution Systems (IRA-WDS) tool. The application of this tool will enable engineers to better manage water quality by developing appropriate control measures to minimise these risks by, for example, prioritising their operational maintenance strategies. Previous studies mainly focussed on risk due to breakage of pipes. All these risk assessment methodologies are based on the principle of regression ( [Clark et al., 1982], [Shamir and Howard, 1979], [Walski, 1987] and [Walski and Pelliccia, 1982]) or probability analysis ( [Andreou et al., 1987a], [Andreou et al., 1987b], [Deb et al., 1998], [Eisenbeis et al., 1999], [Herz, 1996], [Herz, 1998] and [Lei, 1997]) and need large amounts of historical data. But the data needed for this purpose is extremely rare and insufficient ( [Ang and Tang, 1984] and [Guymon and Yen, 1990]). Moreover these studies were developed for the water distribution systems which operate at high pressures where the problem is one of leakage rather than contaminant intrusion. But, as stated earlier, pressures in water distribution systems in developing countries are often negligible due to intermittent water supply and contaminants may enter the system through the deteriorated pipes during the periods of low pressure. As the techniques developed for risk assessment due to breakage do not highlight the contaminant intrusion, these are not applicable for intermittent water distribution systems. The techniques developed to consider contaminant intrusion under low or negative pressure resulting from transient use rely on the leakage or breakage data as a surrogate for the intrusion pathway ( [Boyd et al., 2004a], [Boyd et al., 2004b], [Funk et al., 1999] and [LeChevallier et al., 2003]). But these methods have generally assumed that contaminant sources exist around all water distribution pipes and were applied to continuous systems. Lindley and Buchberger (2002) developed a technique to identify the locations in the water distribution systems that may be susceptible to unintended contaminant intrusion. They argued that three susceptibility conditions must be met for an intrusion into a water distribution system to occur. These are: an adverse pressure gradient, an intrusion pathway and a contaminant source. However, the technique developed by Lindley and Buchberger simply performs a spatial analysis to produce a combination of the three susceptibility conditions and does not model the susceptibility conditions for contaminant intrusion. Unlike the previous methods, the IRA-WDS assesses the risk of contaminant intrusion into the water distribution system by modelling the process of contaminant transport from pollutionsources such as sewers, open drains and foul water bodies. In addition it includes a pipe-condition assessment model that is used to indicate intrusion pathways. This model uses over 20 indicators to estimate pipe condition. Risk assessment of water distribution systems due to pollutionsources is a spatial process as the risk components such as hazard (due to pollutionsources) and vulnerability (due to the water

distribution system) are both spatially diverse and need large volumes of spatially diverse data. The pollutionsources such as the sewer system, open drains and surface water bodies are parts of the urban sanitation infrastructure and geo-spatially referenced. In addition, the vulnerability (condition in terms of deterioration) of the water distribution system is spatially distributed since the deterioration attributes are spatial in nature. The risk of contaminant intrusion into a water distribution system is a product of the interaction between the hazard and vulnerability components and is therefore a spatial process. Hence it is necessary to know the spatial outputs in the form of maps representing the degree of severity of the associated risk to the water distribution system so that decision makers can draw up priorities for the rehabilitation of the water distribution system. Geographical information systems (GIS) are powerful tools for handling spatial data, performing spatial analysis and manipulating spatial outputs. A GIS also provides a consistent visualisation environment for displaying the input data and results of a model. This ability of GIS is very useful in a decision-making process. The integration of GIS and external models enables the utilisation of the advantages of both ( [Goodchild et al., 1992], [Goodchild et al., 1993], [Goodchild et al., 1996], [Fotheringham and Rogerson, 1994], [Fischer et al., 1996], [Longley and Batty, 1996], [Fotheringham and Wegener, 2000] and [Argent, 2004]). Since GIS allows the input of spatial data into a model and provides the outputs in spatial forms, it was decided to integrate a GIS into the tool developed for risk assessment. The combination of GIS and modelling tools enables the conversion of large amounts of data into information and then into practical knowledge that is useful for risk assessment. The intrinsic ability of GIS to store, analyze and display large amounts of spatial data enables it to make a significant contribution to risk assessment. This paper presents the development of a new software tool: the Improved Risk Assessment of Water Distribution Systems (IRA-WDS). The software consists of three models: the contaminant ingress model, the pipe-condition assessment model and the risk assessment model. The models are developed in the C++ language and integrated with the GIS using a tight-coupling approach. This paper highlights the different integration methodologies available for the integration of environmental models with GIS and describes the integration methodology used for developing the IRA-WDS; the modelling tools of IRA-WDS and their integration with GIS. The uses of IRA-WDS and a case study of its application are described.

2. Method
This section presents the methodology used for the improved risk assessment for water distribution systems due to contaminant intrusion. Three risk factors have been identified for contaminant intrusion into a water distribution system. These are: the section of pipe in the contaminant zone (SPCZ), the contaminant concentration and the condition of the water distribution pipes in terms of deterioration. These risk factors are established by the associated models, namely, contaminant ingress (contaminant zone and contaminant seepage) and pipe condition assessment models. The three risk factors obtained from these models are combined to obtain a risk index for each pipe by the use of a risk assessment model.

Fig. 1 presents the conceptual model for IRA-WDS. Contaminants from the pollutionsources (e.g. leaky sewers, drains) seep through the soil and percolate down. In this process, these pollutionsources develop a contamination zone (CZ) and if all or part of a water distribution system's pipe work passes through the contamination zone, contaminants may find entry into the pipes through such entry points as cracks and leaky joints. Hence, there is a risk of contaminant intrusion if a water pipe lies in a contaminant zone and at the same time the condition of the pipe has been compromised so as to allow contaminant entry.

Fig. 1. Conceptual model for IRA-WDS. Thus the methodology consists of developing and integrating the following three separate models as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. Components of IRA-WDS modelling tools.

2.1. Contaminant ingress

The contaminant ingress model estimates the contaminant zone of the pollutionsources (sewer pipes, open drains/canals and surface water bodies), and identifies the section of the water distribution pipes passing through the contaminant zone (SPCZ). This model consists of two parts: the contaminant zone and contaminant transport. The contaminant zone model predicts the envelope of pollution emanating from pollutionsources: the contaminant zone. The model is based on the seepage process, which forms part of the theory of soil mechanics. It is assumed that the seepage of contaminants from pollutionsources such as unlined canals/drains and surface water bodies follow a saturated flow while that from pollutionsources such as sewer pipelines and lined canals/drains follows an unsaturated flow. The separate sets of equations for the estimation of a contaminant zone were developed for saturated and unsaturated flows by modifying the approach presented by Harr (1962). The details of the development of these equations can be found in Yan et al. (2002). Once the contaminant zones formed due to pollutionsources are established, the model uses spatial techniques to estimate the sections of the water distribution pipes that intersect with the contaminant zone (SPCZ). This is achieved using geometric algorithms. The algorithms calculate the length of contaminated pipe (LC) in the contaminant zone using the upstream and downstream points of intersection between the contaminant zone and the segment of the water pipe passing through the contaminant zone, as given in Eq. (1): (1)

where LCk is the length of the kth pipe in the contaminant zone (m); upk and dpk are the upstream and downstream intersection points of the kth pipe with the contaminant zone and NP is the number of water distribution pipes. The contaminant transport model simulates the water flux and the variable concentration of the contaminants within the contaminant zone and then predicts the contaminant loading on the SPCZ. This is done by modelling the contaminant transportation process through the soil from the pollutionsources towards the water distribution pipes. Two separate models were developed for estimation of the water flux: the unsaturated flow model for pollutionsources such as sewer pipes and lined drains/canals and the saturated flow model for unlined drains/canals and surface water bodies. For the saturated flow model the flow region is divided into a flownet and for each cell of the flownet the pore-water velocity vi is estimated by combining the velocity potential and Darcy's equation (Fetter, 1999). For the unsaturated flow model, the pore water velocity is calculated using the water flux obtained from the GreenAmpt model and the projected water content (Green and Ampt, 1911). These pore-water velocities are then used by the contaminant transport model to calculate the variable contaminant concentration in soil. In this paper, an analytical solution for the advectiondiffusion-reaction equation developed by Bear (1972) is used, as given in Eq. (2): (2)

where

where RC is the relative concentration, t is time (hours), z is the depth along the flow path (cm), D is the dispersion coefficient (cm2/day), is the pore-water velocity (cm/h), b is the bulk density (g/cm3); Kd is a sorption constant, n is the porosity, S is the solid-phase concentration (mg/l), and is the first-order decay coefficient in the liquid phase (1/h). The contaminant transport model estimates the profile of the contaminant concentration in the soil. The contaminant concentration along the SPCZ is the average concentration at its start and end intersection points as given by Eq. (3). (3)

where CCk is the average contaminant concentration along SPCZ of pipe k, RCkup is the contaminant concentration at the upstream intersection point and RCkud is the contaminant concentration at the downstream intersection point of pipe k.

2.2. Pipe condition assessment

The pipe condition assessment (PCA) model estimates the relative condition of the pipes in the water distribution network to assess the potential intrusion pathway. The condition of each pipe is assessed by means of numerous factors related to the physical, environmental and operational aspects of a water distribution system (see Table 1). These factors are grouped into different indicators at three levels, depending on the nature of the influence of each factor on the deterioration process of the pipe. The uncertainties inherent in these pipe condition indicators are described using fuzzy set theory (Zadeh, 1965). Table 1. Pipe indicators and their groups at different levels Description HazenWilliam coefficient of friction (C) is considered to characterise this influence Larger diameter pipes are less prone to failure than smaller diameter pipes Larger length pipes are more prone to failure than smaller length pipes The pipes having internal protection by lining and/or coating are less susceptible to corrosion The pipes having external protection by lining and/or coating are less susceptible to deterioration Improper bedding may result in premature pipe failure Poor workmanship may deteriorate the pipes and cause more risk regardless of pipe age and other factors Some types of joints experience premature failure (e.g. leadite joints) The more the joints a pipe Level 1 Material decay Level 2 Level 3 Final

Diameter (mm)

Length (m) Pipe indicators Internal protection Physical indicators PCA

External protection Bedding condition Workmanship

Installation indicators

Joint method No. of joints

Description Level 1 has, the more risk of the pipe getting structurally worse The effects of pipe Year of degradation become more installation apparent over time Pipe deteriorates quickly in more corrosive soil and the Soil corrosivity degree of deterioration (Ohm) depends on the pipe material The more permeable surface allows more moisture to Surface percolate to the pipe. The permeability surface salts will be carried to the pipe with moisture The water pipes are Gouundwater deteriorated by the condition groundwater table Pipes buried at higher depth have more possibility of Buried depth failure than those buried at (m) shallower depths Pipe failure rate increases Traffic load with traffic loads Changes to internal water Maximum pressure will change stresses pressure acting on the pipe The more valves, the more is No. of valves the deterioration of the pipe The more water supplies, the No. of water more the pipes will be supply/day deteriorated The more the duration of Duration of water supply, the less chances water of pipe failure supply/day The number of pipe breakages Breakage per year history

Level 2

Level 3

Final

Corrosion indicators

Environmental indicators

Load/strength indicators; intermittency indicators

Operational indicators

Failure indicator

Based on their similarities, the first-level indicators are aggregated to form the second-level indicators. Similarly, the second-level pipe condition indicators are aggregated to form the final indicator. Based on the hierarchical pipe condition structure established from the above aggregation process, fuzzy composite programming ( [Bardossy and Duckstein, 1992] and [Bender and Simonovic, 2000]) is used to compute an indicator distance metric for each indicator, and finally an overall distance metric is obtained using Eq. (4).

(4)

where Lj is the distance metric of pipe j, wj,i is the weighting of indicator i in group j, pj is a balance factor among the indicators for group j, fbj,j is the best value for indicator i in group j, fwj,i is the worst value for indicator i in group j, and fj,i is the actual value for indicator i in group j. The weightings are assigned to indicate the relative importance of the various pipe indicators in a particular group. They are generated by following an analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980). Balance factors that determine the degree of compromise between indicators of the same group are assigned to different groups. The final overall distance metric is a fuzzy number represented by a membership function and is defuzzified using the maximising and minimising sets (Chen, 1985). The defuzzified numbers thus rank the pipes according to their conditions. This metric will be used as a surrogate for the vulnerability of the water distribution pipe (Eq. 5). The details can be found in Yan and Vairavamoorthy (2003). (5) where VUk is the vulnerability of the water distribution pipe k, df is the method for defuzzification and TFk is the trapezoidal fuzzy number for pipe k.

2.3. Risk assessment

The risk of contaminant intrusion into the water distribution system results from the interaction between the hazard agent and the vulnerability of the water distribution pipe. The risk assessment model calculates this risk of contaminant intrusion by combining the outputs from the above two models. In this study, the hazard agent is the contaminant loading along the section of pipes in the contaminant zone. The contaminant loading is obtained from the length of the section of pipe in the contaminant zone and the concentration of contaminants along this section of pipe (Eq. (6)). As stated earlier, these parameters (SPCZ and the contaminant concentration) are obtained with the help of the contaminant ingress model. (6) where HAk is the estimation of hazard for pipe k, LCk is the normalised length of the polluted pipe k, obtained from Eq. (1), rk is the normalised radius of pipe k and CCk is the normalised contaminant concentration of pipe k, obtained from Eq. (3). The condition of the water distribution pipe, which is calculated with the help of the pipe condition assessment model (Eq. (5)), is used as a surrogate of the water pipe's vulnerability to intrusion.

The combination of hazard agent and the vulnerability of the water pipe produces the risk index for contaminant intrusion into the water distribution system. This paper uses a conventional multiple criteria evaluation (MCE), the weighted linear combination (WLC), to calculate the risk index. (7) where RI is the risk index, wh is the weighting for hazard agent, wv is the weighting for the vulnerability of the water pipe, VUk is the vulnerability of the water pipe, obtained from Eq. (5) and HAk is obtained from Eq. (6).

3. Software development
The three models were developed in the C++ programming language and integrated with ArcView 3.2 GIS, using a tight-coupling approach (achieved with the Avenue programming language and dynamic link libraries (DLLs)). This GIS-based tool is the spatial decision support system, which has been named as the Improved Risk Assessment-Water Distribution System (IRA-WDS). ArcView Dialog Designer has been used to design the graphical user interfaces that enable seamless interaction of the user with the models developed. The interface allows the input and retrieval of data to and/or from the model in a user-friendly way. The GUI also provides the functionalities for generating input files, running external models and converting and displaying model outputs from formats such as ASCII files to thematic maps. The section below describes the main components of the software. The software includes several modules based on mathematical models and a GIS-based interface.

3.1. Contaminant ingress model

The contaminant ingress model consists of three modules: the contaminant zone, contaminant seepage, and contaminant transport. The data required for this model includes water distribution system data, pollutionsource data (sewer, canal, and foul water bodies) and soil data. The details of modules are described in Table 2. Table 2. Module descriptions for contaminant ingress model Purpose To determine the contaminant zone of pollutionsources and Contaminant SPCZ along water distribution zone pipe. SPCZ is one of the risk factors in risk assessment model Contaminant To calculate flow velocity due to seepage the pollutionsources. The flow Module Input Networks data for pollutionsources and water distribution system Output SPCZ along water distribution pipe (m)

Properties for soil and Pore-water pollutionsources velocity (cm/h)

Purpose Input Output velocity is used for contaminant transport model To calculate contaminant concentration above water Relative Contaminant Properties for soil and distribution system. The contaminant transport pollutionsources concentration is another factors in concentration risk assessment model The contaminant zone module predicts the contaminant zone for a particular pollutionsource (sewers, open drains and foul water bodies). The SPCZ for the water distribution system is then identified using spatial analysis involving contaminant zones and water distribution pipes. The contaminant seepage module predicts flow velocity for both saturated and unsaturated flows, using Darcy's law and the Green Ampt model respectively. The flow velocities are inputs for the contaminant transport module. The contaminant transport module calculates the contaminant concentration along the SPCZ for steady and unsteady state conditions. These outputs represent the hazard factors in the risk assessment model.

Module

3.2. Pipe condition assessment model

The pipe condition assessment model consists of five modules: the fuzzy calculator; criteria normalisation; the weighting generator; the fuzzy composite programme; and the classification module. The data required for the pipe condition assessment model concerns the water distribution system, the pipe deterioration indicator along with groundwater and pressure zone data. The details of these modules are described in Table 3. Table 3. Module descriptions for pipe condition assessment model Module Fuzzy calculator Criteria normalisation Purpose To perform fuzzy arithmetic To normalise deterioration factors to the same scale and used for composite programming To generate weights for deterioration factors using either analytical hieratical process (AHP) or assign weight directly and balance factors Input Fuzzy membership functions Output Aggregated fuzzy number Normalised Properties for soil criteria for and pollutionsources composite programming Pair-wise Weight and comparison from balance factor interviewing experts

Weight generator

Module Fuzzy composite programming Ranking and classification

Input Pipe deterioration To calculate condition index data for water using deterioration indicators distribution system Rank pipe condition index that Pipe condition index are fuzzy numbers and classify from composite into groups given by user programming

Purpose

Output Pipe condition index Condition group classifications

The fuzzy calculator module performs fuzzy arithmetic calculations. Both triangular and trapezoidal fuzzy numbers are considered by this module. Various operators (e.g. addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, power), are overloaded so that normal arithmetic operators (+, , , /) can be used. The criteria normalisation module normalises pipe deterioration factors using criteria A, B, C or D that are used in the composite programming. The weighting generator module generates weightings and balance factors. The weights and balance factors (used for pipe condition indictors and groups) are either assigned directly by the user or generated using the analytical hieratical process (AHP). In addition, default weightings obtained by interviewing engineers and practitioners working on network operations have been given. The fuzzy composite programming module aggregates the normalised deterioration indicators, weightings and balance factors to calculate a pipe condition index for each pipe. Each class in this module performs this operation for a specific level of the composite hierarchy structure. The ranking and classification module defuzzifies the fuzzy pipe-condition index, obtained from the fuzzy composite programming module for each pipe and ranks/groups pipes according to their defuzzified pipe-condition index.

3.3. Risk assessment model

The risk assessment model consists of four modules: risk factors normalisation; weighting generator; risk estimator and the classification module. The details of these modules are described in Table 4. Table 4. Module descriptions for risk assessment model Module Criteria normalisation Weight generator Input Outputs from ingress To normalise risk factors to the model and pipe same scale and used for risk condition assessment estimator model To generate weights for risk Pair-wise comparison factors using either analytical from interviewing Purpose Output Normalised risk factors Weight for risk factors

Purpose hieratical process (AHP) or assign weight directly To generate risk index using the risk factors obtained from Risk estimator ingress model and pipe condition assessment model Rank pipe risk index and Ranking and classify into groups given by classification user

Module

Input experts

Output

Normalised risk factors Risk index

Risk index from risk estimator

Risk group classifications

The risk factor normalisation module normalises a particular risk factor. For example the SPCZ and contaminant concentration risk factors are normalised and used to calculate the hazard. The hazard and vulnerability risk factors are then normalised and used to assess risk. The weighting generator module generates weightings for each of the risk factors. These are either assigned directly by the user or generated using the analytical hieratical process (AHP). The risk estimator module generates the risk index for each pipe by using a weighted linear combination (WLC). The ranking and classification module ranks and groups pipes according to their risk index (the number of groups are specified by the user).

3.4. Integration into the GIS

The integration of environmental models with GIS has been discussed by several researchers ( [Goodchild et al., 1992], [Goodchild et al., 1993], [Stuart and Stocks, 1993], [Batty and Xie, 1994], [Fotheringham and Rogerson, 1994], [Fischer et al., 1996], [Goodchild et al., 1996], [Karimi and Houston, 1996], [Longley and Batty, 1996] and [Fotheringham and Wegener, 2000]). In addition, Karimi and Houston (1996) and Tait et al. (2004) also attempted to classify different integration methodologies. In general, three methods of integration or coupling are used to link environmental models with GIS. These are: loose coupling, tight coupling and embedded coupling. These three integration methods differ in their architectural characteristics and this depends on the degree and form of data exchange or sharing between the GIS and the external models ( [Goodchild et al., 1992], [Goodchild et al., 1993], [Nyerges, 1992] and [Fedra, 1993]). With loose coupling, the GIS serves as both a pre-processor and a postprocessor to the modelling system, while tight coupling is the integration of the models and GIS under a common interface. In embedded coupling, the models are developed within the GIS environment or alternatively a GIS component is added to the modelling system (Huang and Jiang, 2002). Where complex models of different domains are to be integrated with GIS, tight coupling is needed (Karimi and Houston, 1996). The tight coupling approach also offers full control to the experienced user and minimal interaction to the novice. According to Tait et al. (2004), through tight coupling, modellers can spend more of their effort on building the models themselves. Therefore the tight

coupling approach has been adopted in the development of IRA-WDS. Fig. 3 illustrates the integration of models with GIS.

Fig. 3. Integration of models with GIS. The GUI enables the data to be retrieved from the spatial databases, and then passed to the required models. The outputs from the models are then converted and presented as tables and thematic maps. This is all achieved seamlessly through DLL calling functions within the GIS. A Document Graphical User Interface (DocGUI) for IRA-WDS (Fig. 4) has been created based on the View Document GUI of ArcView. Hence the GUI has similar functionalities to View document, namely allowing the user to display, explore, query and analyze geographic data in IRA-WDS.

Fig. 4. The major components of GIS-based IRA-WDS. This IRA-WDS document GUI includes a selection of controls such as menus, buttons and tools that can be used to interact within the IRA-WDS document GUI. The menus provide sub-menus for generating and loading the input files, for executing the models (through DLL) and viewing the model outputs in tabular or thematic map formats. The model outputs are stored in both ASCII and shape file format (using Avenue script written in the IRA-WDS). The main menus in IRA-WDS launch various important dialog boxes:

 The data preparation menu launches dialog boxes (Fig. 5) that allow the user to convert data from one format to another and to upload relevant shape files and tables into the IRA-WDS platform.

Fig. 5. Addition of shape files through Data Preparationmenu. The contaminant ingress menu launches dialog boxes (Fig. 6) that allow the uploading of the relevant shape-files for the model (i.e. water distribution network; sewer network; canal network; surface water bodies and soil type (note that there is a default database of soils)).

Fig. 6. The main interface for Contaminant Ingress Model. The pipe condition assessment menu launches several dialogs boxes (Fig. 7) that allow uploading of the relevant shape-files for the model (i.e. water distribution system, soil data, groundwater table and hydraulic pressure). The user can specify the pipe indicators to be considered for the condition assessment and their respective crisp/fuzzy values (fuzzy values are inputted by means of a suitable membership function). Note that there is a default database for pipe materials. The user can specify the weightings and balance factors for the pipe indicators (note this dialog box will launch another that will allow the weightings to be generated by the AHP method) and a local or global analysis and then input the range of values to be used (minimum and maximum). Note that there is a default database for the ranges.

Fig. 7. The main interface for Pipe Condition Assessment Model. The risk assessment menu launches a dialog box (Fig. 8) that allows uploading of the relevant output files from the contaminant ingress and pipe condition assessment model. In addition it allows the user to specify the weights required for hazard and vulnerability (note that this dialog box will launch another that will allow the weights to be generated by the AHP method).

Fig. 8. The main interface for Risk Assessment Model.

4. Application of IRA-WDS
IRA-WDS was applied to one of the ten zones of the Guntur Municipal Corporation, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, India. This zone is the B. R. Stadium Zone and called Zone VIII. This zone has a population of about 60,000 and an area of 4 km2. As in most parts of the country, an intermittent water supply system is prevalent in this area. Water is supplied through pipe networks for about 1 h per day. The drinking water supplies in this area are prone to contamination due to the various pollutionsources that exist in this zone. Therefore the authorities responsible for managing this system are keen to understand the risks to the water supply associated with the hazards described above and to develop a maintenance strategy that will provide maximum improvements to water quality within their limited budget. At several locations, underground sewer pipes run close, parallel and above the water distribution pipes. Frequent leaks are reported in the sewer network due to blockages. Sewer pipes only cover a small part of the case study area. Most sewage is directly discharged into open drains and canals. Considerable amounts of seepage occur from these open drains and, since they

are at ground level, this seepage can reach the water distribution pipes. Stagnant water is also present in natural depressions in the study area.

4.1. Data collection

The application of IRA-WDS to the Guntur case study required the construction of several databases. The details of the data requirements of IRA-WDS are given in Table 5. These databases were constructed using data collected over a period of 12 months from June 2002 with the assistance of the local authorities and a local NGO. Four thematic maps were constructed related to: the water distribution network; the sewer network; the network of canals/open drains and the surface water bodies (see Fig. 9). Table 5. The data requirement of IRA-WDS Network map (link and node coordinates in metres) and for each pipe of network: length of pipe, joint method, material type, traffic load, surface type, internal protection, external protection, Water distribution bedding condition, workmanship, diameter of pipe, installation systems year, bury depth of start node, bury depth of start node, no of connections, no of breaks per year, number of valves, duration of water supply per day (h/day), number of times water supplied per day The possible pollutionsources and the data needed for each pollutionsources is described below. Underground sewer pipe: network map (link and node coordinates), and for each pipe its length, bury depth, material, leakage rate (m/day) and diameter. Lined open ditch/drain: network map (link and node coordinates), Pollutionsources and for each ditch/drain of network, its length, material, depth and leakage rate. Unlined open ditch/drain: network map (link and node coordinates), and for each ditch/drain of network, its length, depth, soil type and seepage rate. Surface water bodies: surface water bodies map and for each surface water body, its area, depth, soil type and seepage rate Different soil types and for each soil type: saturated volumetric water content, initial volumetric water content, saturated Soil hydraulic conductivity (cm/h), soil characteristic curve coefficient, soil porosity, air entry head (cm), pore size index, bulk density (g/cm3)and fraction organic content For each pollutionsource: liquid phase decay (/h), diffusion Contaminant/pollutant coefficient (cm2/day), organic carbon partition coefficient of the pollutant Different types of pipe material used and for each type: corrosion index, maximum pressure rating (kg/cm2), maximum load rating Pipe material (m-kg/m), design life, maximum diameter (mm), minimum diameter (mm) and the variation of HazenWilliam coefficient

Groundwater Pressure zone

(C) of friction with the age of pipe Groundwater zones in the area and for each zone, average depth to groundwater table (m) and average fluctuation of groundwater (m) Pressure zones in the water distribution system network and for each zone the pressure in the system

Fig. 9. Thematic maps for case study area in Guntur, India. (a) Water distribution system; (b) sewer system; (c) canal/open drains system and (d) foul water bodies. The three models of IRA-WDS (contaminant ingress, pipe condition assessment and risk assessment model) extract the necessary information from the corresponding databases of each theme in order to run the simulations. The outputs of each model are returned back to the geodatabase where the corresponding output themes are generated. In this study, three output themes are generated namely: the SPCZ theme generated from the ingress model; the pipe condition theme generated from the pipe condition assessment model and the risk assessment theme generated from the risk assessment model.

4.2. Results
The outputs of IRA-WDS (SPCZ, pipe condition and risk maps) for the Guntur case study area are discussed in this section. 4.2.1. SPCZ Map The SPCZ map shown in Fig. 10, indicates the section of pipes in the water distribution system that are within the contaminant zone of pollutionsources (sewers, canals/open drains and foul water bodies). In addition, the relative contaminant loading on the SPCZ is also shown. Therefore this output gives an indication of the sections of water pipes in danger of being contaminated.

Fig. 10. Hazard (SPCZ) map for Guntur case study area. 4.2.2. Pipe condition map The pipe condition map (Fig. 11) gives the details of the pipe condition in terms of the relative condition of each pipe. It should be noted that the pipe conditions for the case study area are divided into five groups ranging from very bad to very good. From Fig. 11, it can be seen that the main factor affecting the condition of this system is the number of joints and service connections in the main pipes. This is because the number of joints and service connections is a significant deterioration indicator since they provide potential portals for contaminant intrusion. Clearly the results from this model enable decision makers to prioritise their investments in rehabilitation depending on the pipe condition.

Fig. 11. Water pipe condition map for Guntur case study area. 4.2.3. Risk map for contaminant intrusion The risk map generated for the Guntur case study area is shown in Fig. 12. This figure indicates that most of the water pipes have a medium or low risk. However, a small number of pipes have a high risk of contamination. From the risk map in Fig. 12, several recommendations were made to reduce the risk of contaminant intrusion. These suggested that the authorities should: replace/rehabilitate AC pipes which are found to be in bad condition and hence have a very high susceptibility to contaminant intrusion (e.g. risk area A). undertake a leakage detection and repair programme in areas with many joints and connections (e.g. risk area B); inspect open drains and reline where necessary (e.g. risk area C);

 provide protection to water pipes in areas where they are close to the open drains (risk areas D); de-water and fill foul water bodies in the north east (e.g. risk area E).

Fig. 12. Risk map for contaminant intrusion for Guntur case study area. Though the results obtained for the case study area could not be validated with actual field data, nevertheless the IRA-WDS provides engineers with valuable insights into the risk of water contamination in a water distribution system. One of the major benefits of using IRA-WDS, is that it is possible for the decision makers to gauge the impacts of the above recommendations on the risk index. This can be achieved by simply modifying the database appropriately and rerunning the model. However, as there may be several other objectives related to an investment strategy for the water distribution system, these should also be considered. For example, it would be prudent to combine the outputs of this model with a hydraulic model to establish the most significant pipes in terms of both the risk of contaminant intrusion and changes required to improve the hydraulic carrying capacity of the system.

5. Conclusions

This paper recognises the need of municipal engineers in developing countries for a tool to assess the risk of contaminant intrusion into a water distribution system so as to prioritise risk mitigation actions. Currently there are no tools available to enable engineers to identify the risks associated with contaminant intrusion into intermittent water distribution systems. This research has identified a sourcepathwayreceptor approach for establishing the risk of contaminant intrusion and developed a powerful tool, IRA-WDS for this purpose. This tool enables decisionmakers to prioritise their investments in relation to water quality management. IRA-WDS consists of three separate models. The contaminant ingress model establishes the hazard by estimating the contaminant loading on a section of water distribution pipes passing through a contaminant zone. The pipe condition assessment model establishes the vulnerability by estimating the relative condition of pipes using fuzzy composite programming techniques. The risk assessment model then calculates risk by combining the outputs from the above two models (hazard and vulnerability). The three models were developed in the C++ programming language and integrated with GIS using a tight-coupling approach (achieved with the Avenue programming language and dynamic link libraries (DLLs)). IRA-WDS also has a powerful GUI that enables data for the models to be retrieved from the spatial databases and the outputs from the models to be converted and presented as tables and thematic maps. This is all achieved seamlessly through DLL calling functions within the GIS. IRA-WDS has been applied to a water distribution network in south India and the outputs used to generate several thematic maps. These maps identified sections of the system that were most at risk and also provided an understanding of the main factors that contributed to the risk. The outcome of using this tool enables engineers to prioritise maintenance for risk mitigation and also provides decision-makers with a better understanding of the process of contaminant intrusion. It is anticipated that IRA-WDS will find wide application among water utilities, especially in developing countries where intermittent water supplies are the norm.

References