This paper presents an economic analysis of pressure control solutions for leakage and pipe burst reduction. In detail, it explores the operating conditions under which the installation of conventional mechanical pressure reducing valves (PRVs) or remotely real-time controlled (RTC) valves are cost effective compared to a scenario with no control. For a range of system sizes, hydraulic extended period simulations and empirical formulas were used to estimate leakage rates and pipe bursts, respectively, in numerous operational scenarios, including different precontrol leakage levels and demand patterns, the absence of pressure control, and the installation of a PRVor RTC valve. The total cost of the controlled system, including the installation cost of the control device, the flow-dependent operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, and the pipe burst repair cost over the planning horizon, was compared with the water-related O&M and pipe burst repair costs of the uncontrolled system. The results pointed out that no pressure controls are needed if leakage and the variable O&M cost of water are low. When these variables are high, remote RTC is attractive, especially when the demand pattern is peaked and the system is large. For more moderate cost and leakage, a conventional PRV may be better than RTC, especially in small systems and for relatively smooth demand patterns.

Economic analysis of pressure control for leakage and pipe burst reduction

Creaco, Enrico
Writing – Review & Editing
;
2017-01-01

Abstract

This paper presents an economic analysis of pressure control solutions for leakage and pipe burst reduction. In detail, it explores the operating conditions under which the installation of conventional mechanical pressure reducing valves (PRVs) or remotely real-time controlled (RTC) valves are cost effective compared to a scenario with no control. For a range of system sizes, hydraulic extended period simulations and empirical formulas were used to estimate leakage rates and pipe bursts, respectively, in numerous operational scenarios, including different precontrol leakage levels and demand patterns, the absence of pressure control, and the installation of a PRVor RTC valve. The total cost of the controlled system, including the installation cost of the control device, the flow-dependent operation and maintenance (O&M) cost, and the pipe burst repair cost over the planning horizon, was compared with the water-related O&M and pipe burst repair costs of the uncontrolled system. The results pointed out that no pressure controls are needed if leakage and the variable O&M cost of water are low. When these variables are high, remote RTC is attractive, especially when the demand pattern is peaked and the system is large. For more moderate cost and leakage, a conventional PRV may be better than RTC, especially in small systems and for relatively smooth demand patterns.
2017
Esperti anonimi
Inglese
Internazionale
STAMPA
143
12
04017074
Economic analysis; Leakage reduction; Pressure control; Pressure reducing valves; Real-time control; Water distribution; Civil and Structural Engineering; Geography, Planning and Development; Water Science and Technology; Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
http://ojps.aip.org/wro/
2
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
262
Creaco, Enrico; Walski, Thomas
1 Contributo su Rivista::1.1 Articolo in rivista
none
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11571/1207506
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 67
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 63
social impact