emnet, llc (distributed sensing technologies) - cso real time monitoring.pdf · monitoring and...
Post on 03-May-2018
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
3
Size of the Problem
S 772 cities
S 46 million people
S 850 billion gallons
S $50.6 billion
S 13%-39% reduction
Traditional SolutionsWWTP Expansion
Sewer Separation
S Expensive (x10-x100)
S Disruptive
S Not always compliant
S Not always feasible
S I&I problems
S Last Resort
4
WWTP
Expansion
SeparationAtlanta 27%
separation
$900
million
Alternative
SolutionsIn-Line Storage
Off-Line Storage
S Less expensive
S Less disruptive
S Perceived risk
S Few implementations
S Most effective with RTC
5
Off-Line StorageChicago TARP
$3.2 billion
In-Line StorageIndianapolis White
River Dam
$1.0 million
Real Time Control
S Uses current data
from actual sewer
conditions
S Adjusts flows
automatically
S Reduces CSO
S Reduces flooding
S Makes the sewer
system “intelligent”
RTC Basics
S Eyes – monitor, sensors
S Brain – control strategy, computer hardware / software
S Hands – control, valves, pumps etc.
Eyes:
Traditional SCADA
8
Antenna
Pole
Cabinet
PLC
Sensor Module
Radio Modem
Power Supply
Power Meter
S Assembly
S Power
S Installation
High Cost per Site
Brain:
Traditional Control Strategy
9
A SCADA System
requires a locally
managed control
center
Milwaukee SCADA
Software
Implementation $5
million
S Milwaukee ($5M)
S Louisville ($250K/year)
S Not Scalable
S Black Box
S Long learning curve
S Dependence on
provider
Hands:
Traditional Flow Control Devices
S Electric Valves
S Electric Gates
S Inflatable Dams
S Pumps
10
New
Technology
11
• Indiana 21st Century Fund
• Lead organization
• Focus on environmental
monitoring and control
• Develops / commercializes
wireless technology
New Technology: CSOnet
12
Wireless network of monitoring and control points
for system wide sewer management
Key Aspects:
S Numerous monitoring points
S Real time data collection
S Out-of-the-box control strategy
S Fraction of the cost of traditional systems
S Maximizes use of existing infrastructure
S Complete integration with existing systems
14
City-Wide CSOnet
ApplicationWide
Area
Network
CSOnet Sensor
Data Acquisition Point
WWTP
Municipality
Importance of Monitoring
S Learn how the sewer system operates
S Identify areas for improvement or storage
S Early detection of sewer problems
S Evaluate improvements
S NMC Compliance
16
19
Case Study:
City of South Bend
Population: 107,000
CSO discharge points: 36
CSO area: 20 square miles
Sewer length: 500 miles
CSO volume: 1.0 billion gallons/year
CSOnet monitoring points: 110
CSOnet Control points: 15-20
South Bend CSOnet Goals
S Eliminate dry weather overflows
S Prevent basement backups
S Identify areas for inline and offline storage
S Identify sources of I&I
S Enhance existing automated control system
S Maximize flows to WWTP
S Calibrate Model 20
23
Increase Flow to WWTP
Throttle Line
Combined
Sewer
Trunkline
Interceptor Line
Overflow
Line
Weir
Cabinet
or Traffic Signal
GNode
INode
Sensor
Stilling
Well
Manhole Cover
Antenna
Weir
Sensor
Stilling
Well
Larger Parallel
Throttle Line
Actuated ValveCombined
Sewer
Trunkline
Interceptor Line
Conduit
Overflow
Line
CSOnet Capabilities
S Reduce CSO volume by balancing flows to WWTP
S Increase inline storage opportunities
S Control where overflows occur
S Increase storage ability in retention basins by up to 150%
S Prevent dry weather overflows
S Prevent basement backups
Annual Overflow Volume
Existing System (MG)
Annual Overflow Volume
CSOnet System (MG)
Percentage
Reduction (%)
918.2 702.8 23%
South Bend, Indiana
CSOnet Monetary Results
S Original CSO LTCP budget = $400 million(separation, WWTP expansion, tunnel)
S CSO LTCP budget with CSOnet = $250 million(separation, WWTP expansion)
S EPA will accept alternative if:
S CSO volume reduction is achieved
S On schedule
25
CSOnet Capabilities
S Fulfill five of the Nine Minimum Controls
S Dry weather overflow prevention
S Basement backup prevention
S Identify areas for inline and offline storage
S Identify I&I sources
S Maximize flows to WWTP
S Calibrate existing sewer model
Summary S Real-time monitoring and control
S Maximize use of existing infrastructure
S Simple, fast installation
S Plug-and-play functionality
S Incrementally implementable
S Inexpensive
27
Localized-Reactive Control
29
Pros: Small dependence on communications
Small dependence on hydraulic models
Robust to device failure
Relatively inexpensive
Cons: Poor system-wide performance
Global-Predictive Control
30
Pros: Good overall performance
(only if model is right)
Cons: Dependent on model
Dependent on communications
Large computation requirements
Less robust
top related