4 Project Information
4.1 Project Description
4.1.5 Responsibilities of the Project Participants
Dr. Lindell Ormsbee of the University of Kentucky (UK) served as the principal investigator of the project. Table 3 lists the specific individual who was responsible for execution of each project task.
TABLE 3. INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR EXECUTING EACH PROJECT TASK
Task T#1 T#2 T#3 T#4 T#5 T#6 T#7 T#8 T#9 T#10 T#11 T#12
L = Task Lead; as = Administrative Support; ts = Technical Support; fs = Field Support
15 | P a g e
FIGURE 2. SUMMARY OF PROJECT TASKS
SS
SS HM QM6
SS HM QM QS
UP = Utility Partner AB = Advisory Board SS = SCADA System HS = Hydraulic Sensors
QS = Quality Sensors GFDM = Graphical Flow Distribution Model TK = Toolkit PM = Physical Model
HM = Hydraulic Model (i.e. KYIPIPE) HSP = Hydraulic Sensor Placement QM = Quality Model (i.e. EPANET) QSP = Quality Sensor Placement RTM= Real Time Model Evaluation WK = Utility Workshop
FR = Final Report 1 = Task Number
Small System
Medium System
Large System
GFDM5 TK9
Surveys
Software Development
Analyses Physical Model
HM6 QM6
HS3 QS3
HS
HS
HSP8 QSP8
HS
QS TK10
RTM7
FR12 Advisory
UP2
AB1
SS3
WK11 PM4 GFDM5
HM6
PM4 GFDM5 GFDM5
GFDM5 PM4
Application
16 | P a g e 4.2 SUMMARY OF WORK
The project was performed in twelve tasks. These are summarized below.
4.2.1 TASK 1 – ESTABLISHMENT OF AN ADVISORY GROUP
An external advisory group was assembled to provide ongoing guidance and direction during the course of the project. The advisory group consisted of representatives from various groups within the water sector as summarized below:
Name Title Agency
Sam Varnado Senior Program Advisor National Institute of Hometown Security (NIHS)
John Taylor Director of Program
Management National Institute of Hometown Security (NIHS)
Amanda White Project Manager National Institute of Hometown
Security (NIHS)
John Laws Water Infrastructure Analyst Dept. of Homeland Security
Robert Janke Engineer WIPD U.S. EPA-NHSRC
Morris Maslia Engineer U.S. CDC-ATSDR
Any Kramer Design Engineer Manager Northern Kentucky Water
District
Arnold Strasser Engineer Denver Water Company
Jim Bramwell Vice President, Chief Engineer Louisville Water Company
William Hart Engineer Sandia Labs
Katie Umberg Engineer USEPA, Water Security Division
Jim Graham Chair, Dept. of Electrical
Engineering University of Louisville
Terry Humphries Environmental Scientist KY Division of Water, Drinking Water Branch
Mark Ginsberg Engineer US Army E ERD-CERL-IL
Tom Calkins General Manager Nicholasville Water Dept.
Kevin Crump General Manager Paris Water Department
Zia Bukhari Senior Manager American Water Company
17 | P a g e Four face-to-face meetings of the advisory board were held over the duration of the project. These included the following dates: 8/16/2011, 3/30/2012, 5/21/2013, and 9/22/2014. Video conferencing options were provided to those members who were not able to attend the meeting in person. Project minutes and Powerpoint presentations from each meeting were developed and submitted as project deliverables as summarized in Section 4.3. In addition to the advisory board meetings, project leadership also provided separate briefings to DHS personnel on 5/17/12, 1/13/14, and 1/21/15. Project minutes and Powerpoint presentations from each of these meetings were developed and archived as part of the project.
Project management was facilitated by weekly/monthly emails between Dr. Ormsbee and other members of the project team. Additional face-to-face meetings of all of the members of the project team were held on 5/4/2011, 12/1/2012, 8/27/2012. Agendas and minutes of each meeting were developed and archived as part of the project.
4.2.1.1 Task 1 Deliverables:
• D1.1 Advisory Board Mission Statement
• D1.2.1 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes (8-16-11)
• D1.2.2 Advisory Board Meeting Presentation (8-16-11)
• D1.3.1 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes (3-20-12)
• D1.3.2 Advisory Board Meeting Presentation (3-20-12)
• D1.4.1 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes (5-21-13)
• D1.4.2 Advisory Board Meeting Presentation (5-21-13)
• D1.5.1 Advisory Board Meeting Minutes (9-22-14)
• D1.5.2 Advisory Board Meeting Presentation (9-22-14)
4.2.2 TASK 2 – SELECT UTILITY PARTNERS
Three different water distribution systems (a small system, a medium system, and a large system) were selected for use in this study following consultation with the advisory board. These included:
1) Paris, Kentucky (small system), 2) Nicholasville, Kentucky (medium system), and 3) Northern Kentucky Water District (large system). The three utilities were selected to represent the range of operational capabilities illustrated in Figure 1. The characteristics of each system are discussed below and summarized in Table 4:
• Small system/minimum functionality –Paris, Kentucky is a small utility (i.e. < 10,000 customers) that had basic telemetry, but no graphical or hydraulic model of their distribution system. The research team worked with the utility to develop a simple graphical flow dynamics model of their system based on existing GIS map data. The hydraulic model was field verified and then calibrated using flow and pressure data collected from the field. Members of the research team provided a final copy of the calibrated model to the utility and met with utility officials to demonstrate its capabilities.
The model was actually used to evaluate the impact of an operational decision associated with the repair of a leaking pipe.
• Medium system/moderate functionality –Nicholasville, Kentucky is a medium sized utility (i.e. >10,000 and <100,000) that had a hydraulic model of their system but no water quality model or SCADA system. The research team worked with the utility to calibrate the hydraulic model and then develop a calibrated water quality model of the system. The
18 | P a g e research team also met with the utility to explain the features of the final toolkit. Lessons learned from this implementation were incorporated into the content of the final operational toolkit.
• Large system/high functionality – The Northern Kentucky Water District (NKWD), is a large utility (i.e. > 100,000) that had an existing SCADA system as well as a hydraulic and water quality model. The research team worked with this utility to calibrate both the hydraulic and water quality models, to evaluate the impact of flow dynamics on water quality, and the ability to use the hydraulic and water quality models linked with SCADA for water quality predictions. Lessons learned from this implementation were incorporated into the content of the final operational toolkit.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY STATISTICS FOR UTILITY PARTNERS
System Number of
Customers Initial Model
Development Hierarchy UK Contribution to System Model Paris, KY < 10,000 Basic telemetry Steady state
hydraulic model Nicholasville,
KY 10,000 - 100,000 Hydraulic model Water quality model NKWD > 100,000 SCADA, hydraulic and
water quality model Calibrated system models
4.2.2.1 Task 2 Deliverables
• D2.1.0 Draft MOU for Utility Partners
• D2.1.1 Signed MOU for Small System Utility
• D2.1.2 Signed MOU for Medium System Utility
• D2.1.3 Signed MOU for Large System Utility
4.2.3 TASK 3 – SURVEY AND EVALUATE SCADA SYSTEMS
The successful implementation of SCADA information into a real-time operational decision making process requires understanding the nature and extent of use of such systems in the water industry.
This objective required that information on the current applications and management uses of SCADA system in small, medium and large water utilities be obtained.
A national survey was developed for use in collecting data on the types of SCADA systems and computer models currently used in support of water distribution system operations, and the types, capabilities, and relative costs of existing hydraulic and water quality sensors being used in water distribution systems. Questions regarding the number of operational SCADA systems currently employed, as well as the location and number of SCADA systems that are currently utilizing a water distribution model to supplement operations were included in the survey. How SCADA system data sets are being analyzed with respect to operational, security and/or incident response management, and a cataloging of the spectrum of current management use of SCADA data that will contribute to the toolkit development were also investigated. An attempt was made to collect data
19 | P a g e on SCADA system costs, annual operating expenses, and annual cost savings for use in the toolkit for communicating opportunities to public and private water utilities.
4.2.3.1 Task Challenges
Two major problems were encountered in seeking to fulfill the objectives of this task. First, following the development of the survey, NIHS was informed that federal guidelines relating to the paperwork reduction Act restricted the total number of utilities that could be surveyed to only nine.
This obviously limited the statistical significance of any of the results. As a result, the final survey results provide a qualitative assessment of utility SCADA uses and needs. Although additional individual survey results were obtained from utilities in Kentucky and Alabama using non-federal funds, the total sample size of the surveys was limited to 26 utilities. The final survey and the associated results may be obtained at www.uky.edu/WDST/SCADA.html.
The second problem encountered with Task 3 was the fact that none of the contacted SCADA companies were willing to provide any cost data about their systems, even in general terms. This limited our ability to provide general cost guidance for different SCADA components for potential utilities. While general websites and contact information for SCADA and equipment supplies were obtained, additional cost information was not available. Nonetheless, these discussions did yield some general information on the state-of-the art of SCADA systems along with narrative discussions about the following issues: sensor options, telemetry options, communication options, and procurement options. This information was ultimately synthesized and summarized in the final operational toolkit and is available at: www.uky.edu/WDST/SCADA.html
As a result of the limited sample size for the SCADA survey, additional surveys were either reviewed or conducted in order to gain additional insights about the challenges of using hydraulic/water quality models in support of network operations.
4.2.3.2 Additional Survey Results
An independent perspective on utility needs and trends as related to SCADA and computer modeling is available from the results of a recent AWWA national utility survey (2014). This survey included the responses of over 209 utilities. The distribution of utility sizes that participated in this survey is provided in Figure 3.
20 | P a g e
FIGURE 3. SERVICE AREA POPULATION OF THOSE UTILITIES IN THE 2013 AWWA SURVEY (AWWA, 2014)
The survey found that hydraulic models get applied most frequently for planning scenarios (28%), fire flow analysis (25%), operational scenario evaluations (21%), and water quality (10%). The most technically challenging aspect of the applied hydraulic models continues to be model calibration (42%). Reflecting recent trends in technology development, Nearly 80% of the surveyed utilities felt that integration of hydraulic models with telemetry/SCADA/distribution sensors was important. Thirty percent of the utilities felt that such integration was critically important. Further, nearly 70% of the surveyed utilities felt that real-time modeling was important, reflecting a growing trend toward real-time operation of water distribution systems and the need for models that can be effective in such an environment.
At the other end of the operational perspective, the research team conducted a survey of 39 small utilities that participated in the 2012 Kentucky Small System Operators Conference. The distribution of utility sizes that participated in this survey is provided in Figure 4. Among the results of this survey was the finding that only 38% of the utilities had developed a hydraulic model of their water distribution system. Among the reasons for a lack of a model were: lack of administrative support, lack of funds to support software and staffing, and lack of personnel to maintain and run the models. Such results were further supported through the various utility workshops that were held as part of this research. These results confirm the need for a simple, user friendly, cost effective introductory hydraulic model for use by small utilities (<10,000 customers).
21 | P a g e
FIGURE 4. SERVICE AREA POPULATION OF THOSE UTILITIES IN THE 2012 KSSOC SURVEY (KWRRI, 2012)
4.2.3.3 Summary of Task Objectives
• Develop a comprehensive survey assessing the current state of SCADA systems (including hydraulic and water quality sensors) across the drinking water industry for use in support of real time operational modeling.
• Develop a comprehensive report assessing the current state of SCADA systems (including hydraulic and water quality sensors, data collection/telemetry, remote terminal units (RTUs)/programmable logic controllers (PLCs), communication options, SCADA master, etc) across the drinking water industry for use in support of real time operational modeling.
4.2.3.4 Significant Accomplishments
• 26 water utilities were surveyed with regard to their SCADA systems and practices
• 39 water utilities were surveyed with regard to the type of hydraulic model they employ in support of their operations
4.2.3.5 Products and Deliverables
• D3.1 Utility Survey and Results 4.2.3.6 Significant Findings
• SCADA equipment and use information is very fragmented and difficult for individual utilities and designers to learn. Additional guidance is needed.
• SCADA technologies continue to change at a fairly rapid pace
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Under 1,000 1,000 - 5,000 5,000 - 10,000 Over 10,000
Service Area Population
22 | P a g e
• While sensor technology is relatively stable, communication options are rapidly advancing, driving down costs
• Cyber security is a major issue and a function of the system telemetry.
• Because of the highly competitive nature of the industry, general cost information on SCADA systems is not readily available from the manufacturers or distributors - thus making the development of general cost guidelines difficult.
• There is a strong need for SCADA system training for water utilities
• Nearly 80% of surveyed water utilities felt that the integration of hydraulic models with telemetry/SCADA/distribution sensors is important
• Nearly 70% of surveyed water utilities feel that real-time modeling is important 4.2.3.7 Future Directions
The University of Missouri is developing a training course for water utility operators based on the information collected as part of this task.
4.2.4 TASK 4 – BUILD LABORATORY SCALE MODEL OF WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
Use of computer models (both hydraulic and water quality) to aid in the operations of water distribution systems in a real-time environment requires that the models represent the actual system as accurately as possible. In the past, such models have frequently incorporated basic physical assumptions and/or approximations, that while adequate for most static applications (e.g.
network design, etc.), may introduce levels of errors that could prove to be significant when applied in support of real time operations and in particular in support of contamination detection. As an example Wood et al., (1993, 1994) have shown that the use of a constant minor loss coefficient for pipe junctions and fittings may introduce a significant error in network modeling results, especially in the case of large diameter pipes with short lengths. The impact of such errors on water quality predictions is largely unknown. As part of their research, Wood et al. developed flow dependent loss relationships for several different standard fitting configurations that could be incorporated into most standard hydraulic software.
In addition to explicit hydraulic considerations, several researchers (Lee and Buchberger, 2001;
Tzatchkov et al., and Lee; 2004) have shown that dispersion can have a significant effect on concentration profiles, especially in the cases of intermittent laminar flow. Further, Buchberger et al., (2003) have shown that the aggregation and concentration of distributed system demands at junction nodes can also impact water quality predictions. Finally, Van Bloemen Waanders et al.
(2005) have shown that the normal assumption of complete mixing at junctions nodes, such as made in EPANET2, is not totally accurate, especially at four pipe intersections. In order to evaluate the impacts of each of these assumptions on the ability of hydraulic (and by dependence water quality) models to accurate forecast future state conditions, a laboratory scale model of a water distribution network was constructed and its performance compared to that of hydraulic and water quality computer models.
Following the identification of the medium sized utility, a site visit was conducted where relevant system data were collected, including data associated with the hydraulic model for the system and operational field data for use in developing and calibrating a water quality model for the system (see Task 6). Using the collected data, a scale representation of the system was constructed in the
23 | P a g e hydraulics laboratory of the University of Kentucky, such that both network hydraulics and fate and transport processes were represented as accurately as possible. The developed model was then instrumented with basic flow and pressure sensors as well as sensors to evaluate surrogate water quality parameters (e.g. food grade calcium chloride). The model was also instrumented with inline valves for use in adjusting the relative head-loss associated with each pipe segment. Once constructed, hydraulic and water quality models of the system were developed and calibrated using data collected from the physical laboratory model using standard EPA protocols (2005) as modified for laboratory applications. Once calibrated, the computer models were used to forecast future hydraulic and water quality conditions based on the known boundary conditions of the physical model. The observations from the physical model were then compared with the predictions of the computer models in order to assess the reliability of the computer models to accurately predict the observed conditions. The sensitivity of the measured water quality parameters to system hydraulics were determined by varying the boundary and loading conditions of the physical model and then determining the resulting impacts on the water quality results. Once determined, the ability of the computer models to replicate these results were evaluated.
4.2.4.1 Summary of Task Objectives
• Develop laboratory scale model of medium sized utility water distribution system to evaluate the ability of existing software to adequately characterize the flow dynamics and water quality characteristics of the system.
4.2.4.2 Significant Accomplishments
• Fully Functional Lab Model with pressure, flow and water quality sensors.
• Archived information on lab model design, construction and calibration 4.2.4.3 Products and Deliverables
• D4.1 Physical Model Design Report
• D4.2 Physical Model Construction Report
• D4.3 Physical Model Analysis Report 4.2.4.4 Significant Findings
• Multiple data sets with different conditions are required for optimum calibration.
• Using both velocity and pressure measurements produce better verification results.
• The use of one source of data (e.g., velocity) in the calibration can distort the verification results of the other data (e.g., pressure)
• Lab model minor loss dominated; this puts greater emphasis on accurate minor loss coefficients.
• Extreme care must be exercised in building the network to avoid the introduction of additional minor loss at the network junctions
• Lumped C values can vary significantly in the lab model.
• Significant diffusion of the tracer was observed in the lab model.
24 | P a g e 4.2.4.5 Future Directions
• Based on the results of the initial model, the physical model will be refit and upgraded to reduce the variability of minor losses at the network junctions.
• Once the network has been refurbished, additional experiments are planned.
4.2.5 TASK 5 – DEVELOP GRAPHICAL FLOW DISTRIBUTION MODEL
Based on the fact that our survey results revealed that many small utilities do not have a hydraulic model of their system, a simple graphical flow distribution model was developed with the following functionality: 1) the ability to display a visual schematic of the water distribution system with an associated geo-referenced background map, 2) the ability to enter, store, query, and retrieve physical data about the components of the system (i.e. pipes, pumps, tanks, valves), 3) the ability to perform a simple steady state hydraulic analysis of the system and to display the results (i.e. flows and pressures) both visually through a graphical user interface, and through a Word compatible document format. The software was developed through a commercial partnership with KYPIPE LLC, which agreed to provide a free on-line version of the software for utilities with less than 2,000 pipes in their distribution system (see: http://kypipe.com/decon). The graphical flow model was developed to be totally compatible with their regular commercial software package (i.e. PIPE 2014) for those utilities that would like to migrate to a platform with greater functionality. This arrangement will ensure the continued support and distribution of the software beyond the project duration.
One of the barriers to the development and use of either off-line or on-line water distribution models (especially for small utilities) is the lack of data that can be easily integrated in the creation of a graphical map of the water distribution system. The state of Kentucky has developed an
One of the barriers to the development and use of either off-line or on-line water distribution models (especially for small utilities) is the lack of data that can be easily integrated in the creation of a graphical map of the water distribution system. The state of Kentucky has developed an