Feasibility Study of laying Trunk & Gravity main, design and c

Feasibility Study of laying Trunk & Gravity main,
design and costing
At Poundbury
25th April 2021
Contents
1) Introduction
2) Investigation of routes
3) Options considered
a. Justification for selection pipe routes
b. Pipe design

4) Costs
5) Pump
6) Pressure surges
7) Conclusions
8) Appendices
A. Plans and long sections (including the HGL) of all routes
considered
B. Design calculations
C. Cost spreadsheets
D. Information relevant to pump selection
E. Information relevant to pressure surge protection

1) Introduction:
Is to design two pipe system which includes pump trunk main
and gravity distribution main for supplying treated drinking
water to 2000 new houses at Poundbury. In view of the
increased developments in the area such as private housing,
retail shops, pubs, restaurants and other businesses in the area,
the current water supply will not be able to sustain for the
economic expansion of the town.
The design is provided a trunk main route from Borton PS
59.45m AOD to Lambert’s Hill (155.7m AOD) reservoir and a
gravity distribution main from Lambert’s Hill to Poundbury
110.0m AOD because the problem with the existing Dorchester
water tower is at a lower level 108mAOD compared to
Poundbury. The new water pipe system will be able to supply
drinking water to the community and sustain the booming
economy for decades to come. The design will be in
line/according to the Wessex-water standards and should also be
able to cater for future extension in it.
Project objective:
The aim is to provide a feasibility study on the pumped trunk
main design and the gravity main design from the two proposed
materials that is cast iron DI pipe and UPVC PE pipe. The

proposal will access the flow rate, pipe selective diameter from
industry, maximum pressure in the system, head loss in pipe and
pipe design arrangement by using the following methods.
Method 1: Darcy equation and Moddy Diagram
Method 2: C-W equation and H-R walling ford look up tables.
Project will incorporate the best suitable route design trunk
main from the pump station to the reservoir and gravity main
reservoir to Poundbury along with advice on the need for
pressure protection in the piping system. The feasibility study
will provide the most cost-effective solutions and economical
design to that the project if it will be feasible prior before the
approval and implementation.
2) Route Investigation:
When planning pipe layout there are several constraints that
must be assessed and considered as a form of site investigation.
The site feasibility will evaluate the ground condition and
geological factors of the surrounding are.
Ground condition:
According to geological map of Britain viewer: Bedrock and
superficial deposits. The soil condition for the proposed pipe
layout are composed of chalk material which are one of the
ideal soil condition for trench pipe laying. The pipe design from
trunk main and gravity main will be entirely lay on are
composed of chalk, so precaution needs to be taken not to lay
the pipe on other soil type that may cause geotechnical effect on
the piping system.
http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk/geologyofbritain/home.html.
Crossing:
When preparing the design, consideration should be taken to
avoid road, railway, river crossing as much as possible. Farmed

land and private properties should be avoided but the issue with
Google earth is that its very difficult to identify private
property boundaries and the land used planned on the area. Any
crossing will be incorporated in to the cost and reinstated to its
original state.
Sensitive area:
Area such as scientific interests, historical monuments and
wildlife sanctuary which has aesthetic beauty should be avoided
completely as it may cause delay in the project due to the fact it
may take years to get approval to access these areas. Areas with
outstanding beauty must be integrated in the cost and restored
to its original natural state.
Site condition for the pipe
Slope:
The ground elevation must minimise crest and through as it may
create pressure drop in the pipe system.
Pipe access:
· Avoid meandering to reduce frictional head losses (hf) in
piping system.
· Pipe will be laid at the depth of 0.9m to 1.3m below ground
level.
· Lay pipe in field to minimise cost and reduce risk such as
siphon phenomenon and negative pressure development in the
trunk main design. (Negative pressure develop in pipe fitting
will absorb contaminants in the environment).
· Install twin pipe under road and rail crossing in case one is

damaged the other can be used as an alternative. First it will
increase the installation cost, but it will be a worthwhile
investment for the long term. (It to mitigate heavy civil work
when pipe are damaged in the future).
Hydraulic:
· The right pipe size should be designed in away as the friction
head losses is minimum, but the energy should be high enough
along hydraulic gradient so that water will be able to flow
above the house in accordance to the Wessex-Water
standard(check google for more information ) .
· Pump water by creating an artificial energy to carry water up
the pipe to the reservoir. The energy should be above the
reservoir to frictional losses of energy in the system would be
accounted for as water flow in the reservoir.

3) Options considered: (pipe disagen )
a) Justification for selection pipe routes
· Choose areas with less bends
· Avoid crossing areas that can inflate the project cost
· Avoid private properties/areas
· Prevent frictional loss
· Ensuring no stagnant water remains in the pipes for than 12
hours
· Maximum pressure in pipes should be less than 60 bar
· The pipe sizes diameters have a high sensitivity towards
frictional loss so the right size calculation is very important to
minimize loss. ( don’t use it )
b) Pipe design
· Pipe material: DI and PE pipe(google )
· DI Trunk Main
The objective is to design and select the appropriate pipe size
for trunk main route from Borton PS to Lambert’s Hill to
minimise the frictional head losses (hf).

Calculate frictional losses (hf) in pipe flow design (trunk
pumped main) by use of 2 methods:
· 1ST METHOD : Darcy Equation & Moody Diagram
· 2ND METHOD : C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up
tables
For selection of the appropriate pipe size the following values
should be available as followed
1) Design flow rate Q=7Ml/day
2) Length of pipe L(km) and type of material: DI; Galvanised
iron (normal condition) and PI; PVC
3) Start point Burton PS 59.45m AOD and end point at
Lambert’s Hill 155.7m AOD
4) Static lift = 155.70 - 59.47 = 96.23m
5) Assume velocity in pipe flow 1m/s according to Wessex-
water standards (
Trunk main design:
Eq.1:
Head-loss of pipe(hf), friction factor(f), length(l), diameter (d
or D), velocity(V) & acceleration due to gravity(g).
1st Method: Darcy Equation & Moody Diagram
Calculation of frictional (head) losses hf in an existing pumped
main pipe flow by use of Darcy Equation (Refer to Appendix B)
Max pressure of total 10.71bars should be less than 16bars
according to Wessex-water standards. 10.71
(Where 1m=0.098041bars)
Pressure check: For min pressure in the system
Min pressure in the system should be equal least 6m

Min pressure = 6m everywhere, therefore will be installing
pressure sustaining valve (PSV) closers to end point of the
Reservoir where the risks is higher to experience pressure less
than 6m.
2nd Method: C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables
main pipe flow by use of Colebrook-White equation (0939) (C-
W) (Refer to Appendix B)
Eq.9
Velocity(V), Pipe diameter(d), Hydraulic gradient(S), Effective
roughness(K) and Kinematic viscosity (
(1) Step 1: Repeat 1st step from method 1:
(2) Step 2: Repeat 2nd Step from method 1: and Pipe Diameter:
350mm
· Gravity Main Design
The objective is to design and select the appropriate pipe size
for each selected gravity main routes from Lambert’s Hill to
Poundbury to minimise the frictional head losses (hf).
Calculate frictional losses (hf) in pipe flow design (trunk
pumped main) by use of 2 methods:
· 2ND METHOD : C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up

tables
For selection of the appropriate pipe size the following values
should be available as followed
a) Design flow rate Q=120 l/s
b) Length of pipe L(km) and type of material: DI; Galvanised
iron (normal condition) and PE; UPVC
c) Start point Lambert’s Hill SR 155.70m AOD and end point at
Poundbury 110.00m AOD
d) Lambert’s Hill SR – (Poundbury max elevation + required
delivery head) =
Assume hf = 155.7 – (110.0 + 20) = 155.7 – 130 = 25.7m
e) Assume velocity in pipe flow 1.0m/s according to Wessex-
water standards ()
Gravity main design:
Eq.9: Gradient
Head-loss of pipe(hf) and length(L)
DI and PE PIPE: Gravity Main
2nd Method: C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables:
main pipe flow by use of Darcy Equation (Refer to Appendix B)
Pressure check:
a) At area where pipe from ground elevation has troughs. The
lowest trough: risk of high pressure 35m(standard) therefore it
is recommended to install Pressure reducing valves (PRV). 3
b) There is highest risk to have max pressure to the downstream
end of pie, in times of very low flow, therefore it is
recommended to stall Pressure reducing valve (PRV) at the
downstream end of the pipe.
c) At area where pipe from ground elevation has peaks. Highest
peak, risk of low pressure or even negative ones, therefore it is

recommended to install pressure increasing valves at this point.
· Pipe elements required for the routes; Calculating fitting
losses: Refer to Appendix B: Table 3.
Types of fittings:
· Pump manifold: Roughness value for 1 manifold is K1= 1.
· Swabbing chambers: ; Swabbing chambers @ every 2.5km of
pipe length
· Long radius bends:
· In line valves: In line valves every 2km of pipe length
· Air valves: one air valves needed
· Isolating valves for each crossing:
· In line tees for future expansion plans:
· Wash outs: to clear out sediment and prevent discoloration
4. Costs:
(refer appendix D)
The capital expenditure calculation for CAPX and OPEX are
based on input costing data available from Baro Happold. The
calculation expenditure is covered for 60 years project life cycle
with net present value of £1 at 6%.
Trunk main/Gravity main:
The cost expenditure for pipe design are from the same size and
the change in project cost are affected by the length of the pipe,
pipe passing through sensitive area and road/river crossing
because they have a high rate £/m compared to pipe lay in field
area. From the capital expenditure total cost, it clearly shows
pipes which are shorter in length cost less and are more cost
economic provided that the meet the design requirement with a
low operation cost.
· Trunk main DI pipe route 1 has the maximum CAPEX and

OPEX cost of £5,930,207/- compare to route 4 which has the
lowest CAPEX & OPEX cost of £5,580,854/-
· Gravity main PE pipe route 1 has the lowest CAPEX and
OPEX cost of £1,205,788/- compare to the same route 1 with DI
pipe which has the CAPEX & OPEX cost of £1,240,733/-. Base
on the analysis it more feasible and cost economic to select PE
pipe material for the gravity main
5. Pump Selection:
Pump type: 5no 200x290x280 – 81/75x5x18.5=100HW as per
appendix D
· The primary reason for not choosing less pump is that at the
beginning the cost of installation will be less but the power out
put is high, thus it will cause a high operation cost as it require
more energy to operate. That is why it is not feasible to
consider series 3no to 4no and any formation with high power
output. It is more advisable to consider a more cost economic
pump installation in series like 5m pump or 6pump which has
the lower power output of 100KW but if there are less pump in
series that produces the same power out put of 100KW or less it
might be considered in the design. As a result, it is more
economical to select the 5m.200x290x280 – with power output
of 100KW.
Pump selection: by appendix D
The selected type of pump that will be used is an Armstrong
4300 pump with specific spec.
Curve no: PT113-1-1-1500
Series: 4300 Starline
Size: 200-290
RPM: 1500
Power: 81/75x5x18.5=100KW
Efficiency: 85%

Pump in series: 5no.200x290x280.
The operating pump: The pump system in series have been
designed in by using the system curve and by looking at the
point where the performance curve and system curve intercept.
This is the point that define that the pump are suitable for the
design. (Operating point is the point where system curve and
operating curve cross.)
6. Pressure surge: (Refer to appendix E)
Is the sonic velocity, stiffness and fluid in the piping system
which the roughness depends on time and the materials used. If
the materials have more resistance to velocity, therefore any
change in pressure and that will create a pressure surge in the
pipe. Pressure surge consequence are fitting failure, pipe
bursting and pump damage.
The graphs in appendix E represent pressure in pipe from two
pipe size 350 and 400mm and from two different materials (D1
and PE).
· D1 pipe: Pressure surge: 350mm pipe (ps-sr)
Node1: The closer the water nears a valve changes the
stronger the pressure surge and it happens along the full length
of the pipe. The pressure rises from 90(m) up to 184(m) then,
down to 40(m). This happens consistence across the internal
length of the pipe when the pressure surge phenomenon to
place. More protection will be need to Node1 than to Node10.
Node1 is more likely to be from pump to reservoir and vice
versa.
Node3 & 6: The pipe system exerts pressure surge phenomenon
but not as intense as in Node1. In Node3 the pressure rises up

during a period of time until it reaches 162max and drop to near
zero, where as in Node 6 its maximum rise is 130m then i t drops
to 60 and stable for a period of time until it drop to -20.
Node 10: The pressure changes but does not happen through the
entire length of the pipe. It happens as a spick as the pressure
rise up from 10(m) to 90(m). It only happens at a single poi nt
(Need less protection than Node1). In Node 10 the pressure
takes longer period to form compared to Node 1.
· D1=400mm: Model: Has similar effect as in D1350mm (the
maximum pressure is near 150m and minimum is around -30(m).
Node3 & 6: Both pipe system in general experiences pressure
surge. Node 3 rise up to nearly 140(m) and has a minimum
pressure loss below -40(m) which equal to -3.9 bar which is
below ˂6m. Node 6 has similar effect. Therefore both pipe
system will require pressure increasing valves at the lowest
point.
Node 10: Same pressure surge as the Note 10 exert in D1 350m
only difference is the maximum and minimum.
· General:
The D1 350mm experience high pressure surge than in D1
400mm at different flow rates while D1 400mm experience
lower pressure surge than in D1 350mm. That means that the
size of pipe with different flow rates will experience pressure
surge differently but the comparison between D1 pipe with PE
pipe is that the PE has a high resistance to pressure surge due to
its elastic and plasticity of UPVC.
7. Conclusion
To conclude the design analysis using 2nd Method: C-W
Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables to assess the flow
rate, gradient, pipe size, frictional loss and maximum powers

between DI and PE pipe along with capex and opex cost
expenditure:
Trunk main pipe analysis shows that the pipe with the shortest
length and less crossing are more feasible and economically
viable to be used for this design.
Trunk main route selection are mostly similar, but its advisable
to select the less cost effective that have less crossing and
bending to minimize frictional head loss.
Gravity main: These two types of material DI and PE does not
have much difference in comparison, when analysing route with
the same length the only issue that differs is the velocity and
retention time between them. PI material is more cost economic
and durable. In additional it has a greater resistance to pressure
surge compared to DI pipes. More thorough studies are needed
to determine the best optimal design for route selection.
On a final note, the feasibility assessment will help to identify
the best route that is more cost effective and sustainable and
environmentally friendly. The pipes should be laid and tested in
accordance with the manufacture’s instructions and the Town
and Country Planning Regulations.
8 Appendix A: Plans and long section
Trunk Main
Fig1: Route 1.Photo from Google [email protected] Google

Gravity Main
Appendix B. Calculation

Pump Trunk Main
Eq.1:
Head-loss of pipe(hf), friction factor(f), length(l), diameter (d
or D), velocity(V) & acceleration due to gravity(g).
DI Pipe: Trunk Main Route 1
1st Method: Darcy Equation & Moody Diagram
main pipe flow by use of Darcy Equation
1) Step 1: Design flow rate; Convert
Eq.2:
2) Step 2: Assumed velocity in pipe 1m/s; Calculate area of pipe
and pipe diameter
We must assume the velocity because we have not designed the
trunk-main and we do not have all the value in the system.
i) Eq.3: Area=Flow rate/Velocity,
Pipe Area(A)=
ii) Pipe Diameter: Eq.4:
Pipe diameter=
The possible D=0.321m = 321mm
From industry DI pipe: Possible pipe 300mm DI pipe or 350mm
DI pipe
Repeat Step 2:
Pipe Diameter: 350mm
Real Velocity(V): Eq.2
3) Step 3: Calculate Reynolds number (Re)
Kinematic viscosity (=1.14 (at typical value )
Eq.5
4) Step 4: Table 38. Recommended roughness values (K).

i) Galvanise iron-good condition K=0.06
Eq.6 K/d=0.06/350=
ii) Use Moody diagram to find friction factor(f) from k-value
Moody diagram F=0.0044
iii) Therefore, frictional head losses (hf).
Eq.1
The total hf losses due to pipe flow are hf=12.047m when
selecting DI pipe d=350mm.
Disregard the DI pipe d=300m has it has a higher frictional head
loss of hf=13.416m.
Route checks
Last checks to make sure the route is a good design:
(1) Velocity check: Fist assumed V=1m/s but re-calculated V=
0.842m/s
Check V=0.842m/s against Wessex-water standards
V=0.842m/s is less than 2m/s
(2) Retention time (RT). Calculate as followed:
Pipe Area (A), Length of pipe (L)=6630m and Velocity
(V)=0.842m/s
Eq.7 RT = L/V = 6630/0.842 =
Check RT=2h19mins against wassex-water standards. RT should
be less than 12hours
(3) Pressure check: For max pressure in the system.

Calculated Max pressure by summing up the following values:
i) Static lift = 155.70 - 59.45= 96.25m
ii) Freeboard= 0.5m
iii) Fitting losses = 0.398 (see
appendix xx)
iv) hf calculation from Darcy Method or C-W and look-up
tables. hf=12.047m
v) In total; Max pressure: Eq.8 Max pressure= Static lift+
Freeboard+ Fitting losses+ hf
(4) Pressure check: For min pressure in the system
Min pressure=6m everywhere, therefore will be installing
than 6m.
DI Pipe: Trunk Main Route 1
2nd Method: C-W Equation & H-R Wallingford look up tables
main pipe flow by use of Colebrook-White equation (0939) (C-
W)
Eq.9
Velocity(V), Pipe diameter(d), Hydraulic gradient(S), Effective
roughness(K) and Kinematic viscosity (
(3) Step 1: Repeat 1st step from method 1:

(4) Step 2: Repeat 2nd Step from method 1: and Pipe Diameter:
350mm
(5) Step 3:
(a) Table 38. Recommended roughness values (K).
Galvanise iron-good condition K=0.06
(b) Table 15 – HR Wallingford table for K=0.06, Pipe size
350mm and Q=0.081
Q1=0.079, HG1=0.00160……………………………..
(V=0.819m/s)
Q2=0.081, HG2=0.00170……………………………..
(V=0.846m/s)
Real: Q =0.081, HG = ……………………………..
(V=0.842m/s)
Linear interpolation gives following equation: Eq:10………..
= 0.0017
Energy losses per meter length of pipe(hf) where then length.
Therefore, total losses hf = 6630 x 0.0017 = 11.271m
Route checks
(1) Velocity check: Fist assumed V=1m/s but re-calculated V=
0.842m/s
Check V=0.842m/s against Wessex-water standards
V=0.842m/s is less than 2m/s
Pipe Area (A), Length of pipe (L)=6630m and Velocity
(V)=0.842m/s

Eq.7 RT = L/V = 6630/0.842 =
Check RT=2h18mins against wassex-water standards. RT should
(3) Pressure check: For max pressure in the system.
Calculated Max pressure by summing up the following values:
i) Static lift = 155.70 - 59.45= 96.25m
ii) Freeboard= 0.5m
iii) Fitting losses = 0.398 (see
appendix xx)
iv) hf calculation from Darcy Method or C-W and look-up
tables. hf=11.271m
v) In total; Max pressure: Eq.8 Max pressure= Static lift+
Freeboard+ Fitting losses+ hf
(4) Pressure check: For min pressure in the system
Min pressure=6m everywhere, therefore will be installing
than 6m.

Gravity Main Design
Eq.9: Gradient
Head-loss of pipe(hf) and length(L)
DI PIPE: Gravity Main Route 1
i) Step 1: Design flow rate; Convert
ii) Step 2: Assumed velocity in pipe 1m/s; Calculate area of
pipe and pipe diameter
a) Eq.3:
b) Pipe Diameter: Eq.4:
Pipe diameter=
The possible D=0.391m = 391mm
iii) Step 3: Gravity Main Route 1: From industry DI pipe:
Possible pipe 350mm, 400mm or 450mm
Table 38. Recommended roughness values (K)=0.06 good
condition
a) Pipe length L=3040m, hf=25.7m, Real: Q= , HG=0.00845 &

D=0.391m
From Table 1: HR Wallingford table
Pipe Size mm
Gradient HG
Assume Gradient HG
Flow rate Q(m^3/s)
Need Q(m^3/s)
Reject
350
0.0080
0.0085
0.184
0.120
0.0085
0.190
Do not Reject
400
0.0080
0.0085
0.262
0.120
0.0085
0.270
Reject
450
0.0080

0.0085
0.352
0.120
0.0085
0.368
(c) Table 15 – HR Wallingford table. D:350mm
Q1 = 0.118, HG1 = 0.00340
Q2 = 0.121, HG2 = 0.00360
Real: Q = 0.120, HG = …
Linear interpolation gives following equation:
Eq:10………..
= 0.00352
(The actual Q=0.120 and actual HG=0.00352 is less than the
initial assumed HG=0.00845)
Energy losses per meter length of pipe(hf) where then length
3040m
Therefore, total losses hf = 3040 x 0.00352 = 10.70m
Route checks

(1) Velocity check: Fist assumed V=1m/s but re-calculated
Vm/s
Check Q=0.120/s and D=0.350m
; V=1.25m/s is less than 1.5m/s
Length of pipe (L)=3040m and Velocity (V)=1.25m/s
Eq.7 RT = L/V = 3040/1.25 =
Check RT=1.06hrs against Wassex-water standards. RT should
(3) Pressure check:
5 At area where pipe from ground elevation has troughs. The
6 There is highest risk to have max pressure to the downstream
7 At area where pipe from ground elevation has peaks. Highest
PE PIPE: Gravity Main Route 2
(1) Step 1: Design flow rate; Convert
Eq.9: Gradient =

(2) Step 2: Assumed velocity in pipe 1m/s; Calculate area of
pipe and pipe diameter
a) Eq.3:
b) Pipe Diameter: Eq.4:
Pipe diameter=
The possible D=0.396.9m = 396.9mm (from industry)
(3) Step 3: Gravity Main Rout 1: From industry PE pipe:
Possible pipe: 396.9mm
Table 38. Recommended roughness values (K)=0.03 good
condition
From Table 14: K=0.03, Q=, HG=0.0082 and range 375mm &
400mm.
Eq.9: Gradient = 25.7/3140 = 0.00818
b) Pipe length L=3140m, hf=25.7m, Real: Q= & HG=0.00818
c) From Table 2: HR Wallingford table
Pipe Size D/mm
Gradient HG
Assume Gradient HG
Flow rate Q(m^3/s)
Need Q(m^3/s)
Reject
375
0.0080
0.0085
0.229
0.120
0.0085

0.237
Reject
400
0.0080
0.0085
0.272
0.120
0.0085
0.280
(d) Eq:11………..
(e) HG1 = 0.00180: Q1 = 0.103, Q2 = 0.122: E Eq:11 Q=0.1196
HG2 = 0.00190: Q1 = 0.106, Q2 = 0.126: E Eq:11 Q=0.1235
(f) Cal for HG value for D:396.9mm
Q1 = 0.1196, HG1 = 0.00180
Q2 = 0.1235, HG2 = 0.00190
Real: Q = 0.120, HG = …
Linear interpolation gives following equation:
Eq:10………..
= 0.00181
(The actual Q=0.120 and actual HG=0.00181 is less than the
initial assumed HG=0.00818)

Energy losses per meter length of pipe(hf) where then length
3040m
Total losses hf = 3140 x 0.00181 = 5.68m
Route checks
(1) Velocity check: Fist assumed V=1m/s but re-calculated
Vm/s: Check Q=0.120/s and D=0.3969m
; V=0.97m/s is less than 1.5m/s
(2) Retention time (RT). Calculate as followed: Length of pipe
(L)=3140m and Velocity (V)=1.25m/s
Eq.7 RT = L/V = 3140/0.97 =
Check RT=1.06hrs against Wassex-water standards. RT less
than 12hours
(3) Pressure check:
8 At area where pipe from ground elevation has troughs. The
9 There is highest risk to have max pressure to the downstream
10 At area where pipe from ground elevation has peaks. Highest

Calculate of frictional losses in pipe fitting
Table3: Fitting Losses for Trunk Main and Gravity Main

Appendix C: Cost spreadsheet
Capital Expenditure Pump Main
Appendix D: Information for PUMP Selection

Pumps for UK civil engineering application licensed to be used
to pump portable water: 4300
Fig9: From lecture: Pump selection summary
Fig10: From lecture: Selected pump: 5 no. 200 x 290 x 280
Appendix E: Pressure surge protection:
Fig11.a: From lecture
Fig11.b: From lecture
Fig11.c : From lecture
Reference:
· http://armstrongfluidtechnology.com/en-gb/products-and-
services/heating-and-cooling/commercial-pumps
· Wessex Water DESIGN STANDARD DS 643 2008 Water
Supply Pressure Pipelines [Online]

N
o
Rout
Description
Rout
length
L/km
1 Pump
manifold K=1
(1 x 1=K1)

Swabbing
chambers @
every 2.5km
of pipe length
K=0.24
No. Long
radius bend
K=0.10
(0.10 x X=K3)
In line valves
every 2km of
pipe length
K=0.12
(0.12 x X=K4)
1 Air-valves
K=0.05
(0.05 x 1=K4)
Isolatating valves for
each crosing K=0.70
(Road+River)x0.70=K6
1 in line tees
for future
expension
K=0.12
(0.12 x 1=K7)
1 wash-out
K=0.59
(0.59 x 1=K7)
Total
K
values
K1K2K3K4K5K6K7K8ΣK
1Route 16.6310.480.70.360.057.70.120.5911.000.7090.398
2Route 26.6410.480.90.360.057.00.120.5910.500.7090.379
3Route 36.2910.480.70.360.056.30.120.599.600.7090.347

4Route 45.7910.480.50.240.056.30.120.599.280.7090.335
5Route 55.9210.480.70.240.056.30.120.599.480.7090.343
Gravity main
1DI: G.main 13.0400.240.40.120.052.80.120.594.321.5630.344
1PE: G.main 13.0400.240.40.120.052.80.120.594.320.9410.207
2PE: G.main 23.1400.240.50.120.052.80.120.594.420.9410.212
3PE: G.main 33.1300.240.40.120.052.80.120.594.320.9410.207
Type of fitting with Roughness value (K)Real
Velocity
0.842m/s
( V^2)
Fitting
losses/m
=ΣK(V^2/2g)
Trunk Main
PE:0.97&DI:1.25 m/s

Feasibility Study of laying Trunk & Gravity main, design and c

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from ChereCheek752

More from ChereCheek752 (20)

Feasibility Study of laying Trunk & Gravity main, design and c