LOGAN WATER ALLIANCE LOGAN SOUTH WATER … · Logan South Water Supply Pressure Management - Detailed ... implemented and the average payback period for ... Logan South Water Supply

LOGAN WATER ALLIANCE

LOGAN SOUTH WATER SUPPLY PRESSURE MANAGEMENT - DETAILED PLANNING

TASK NUMBER: 90-12-76

DECEMBER 2014

Logan South Water Supply Pressure Management - Detailed Planning

Document Number: 7600-000-P-REP-PL-8230

Approval Register

Date

Project Manager Submitted 11/11/2014

Planning & Project Management Team Review 12/11/2014

Program Review 17/11/2014

Controlled Document – Change Register

Revision Section Changed Change Description Initial Date

A Prepare draft report JT 10/11/2014

B Format Draft report SS 11/11/2011

C Incorporate Program review comments JT 01/12/2014

1 Final report format SS 04/12/2014

90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Page 2 of 62 Rev: 1



TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................. 8

1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 10

1.1 Objectives ...................................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 10

1.3 Business Drivers ............................................................................................................................ 10

1.4 Stakeholder Consultation ............................................................................................................... 11

2. PLANNING CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................... 12

2.1 Background .................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................... 12

2.3 Existing Situation ........................................................................................................................... 13

2.4 Previous Studies ............................................................................................................................ 13

3. METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 14

3.1 Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 14

3.1.1 Infrastructure Cost Rates ........................................................................................................... 14

3.1.2 Bulk Water Costs ....................................................................................................................... 14

3.1.3 DMA vs PMA .............................................................................................................................. 14

3.2 Key DSS Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 15

4. NETWORK HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................... 16

4.1 Munruben PMA .............................................................................................................................. 16

4.2 Jimboomba East PMA ................................................................................................................... 19

4.3 Jimboomba West PMA .................................................................................................................. 23

4.4 Cedar Vale PMA ............................................................................................................................ 26

4.5 Flagstone PMA .............................................................................................................................. 29

4.6 New Beith....................................................................................................................................... 32

4.7 Tall Timber PMA ............................................................................................................................ 35

4.7.1 Scenario 1 .................................................................................................................................. 37

4.7.2 Scenario 2 .................................................................................................................................. 40

4.7.3 Additional Scenarios .................................................................................................................. 43

4.8 Pressure Management Summary .................................................................................................. 44

4.9 Infrastructure Cost Summary ......................................................................................................... 44

5. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................. 45

6. CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................. 47

7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................ 48

8. RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 49

9. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 50




FIGURES

Figure 2-1: Study Area ............................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 4-1: Munruben PMA existing maximum pressures ......................................................................... 16 Figure 4-2: Munruben PMA maximum pressure following pressure management .................................... 17 Figure 4-3: Munruben PMA critical point pressure versus flow.................................................................. 18 Figure 4-4: Jimboomba East PMA existing maximum pressures .............................................................. 20 Figure 4-5: Jimboomba East PMA maximum pressure following pressure management ......................... 21 Figure 4-6: Jimboomba East PMA critical point pressure versus flow ....................................................... 21 Figure 4-7: Jimboomba West PMA existing maximum pressures ............................................................. 23 Figure 4-8: Jimboomba West PMA maximum pressure following pressure management ........................ 24 Figure 4-9: Jimboomba West PMA critical point pressure versus flow ...................................................... 25 Figure 4-10: Cedar Vale PMA existing maximum pressures ....................................................................... 26 Figure 4-11: Cedar Vale PMA maximum pressure following pressure management .................................. 27 Figure 4-12: Cedar Vale PMA critical point pressure versus flow ................................................................ 28 Figure 4-13: Flagstone PMA existing maximum pressures ......................................................................... 29 Figure 4-14: Flagstone PMA maximum pressure following pressure management .................................... 30 Figure 4-15: Flagstone PMA critical point pressure versus flow .................................................................. 30 Figure 4-16: New Beith PMA existing maximum pressures ......................................................................... 32 Figure 4-17: New Beith PMA maximum pressure following pressure management.................................... 33 Figure 4-18: New Beith PMA critical point pressure versus flow ................................................................. 33 Figure 4-19: Schematic of Tall Timber PMA arrangement (Scenario 1) ...................................................... 35 Figure 4-20: Tall Timber Area PMA existing maximum pressures............................................................... 36 Figure 4-21: Tall Timber PMA maximum pressure following pressure management (Scenario 1) ............. 37 Figure 4-22: Tall Timber 1.1 PMA critical point pressure versus flow (Scenario 1) ..................................... 38 Figure 4-23: Tall Timber 1.2 PMA critical point pressure versus flow (Scenario 1) ..................................... 38 Figure 4-24: Tall Timber 1.3 PMA critical point pressure versus flow (Scenario 1) ..................................... 39 Figure 4-25: Schematic of Tall Timber PMA arrangement (Scenario 2) ...................................................... 40 Figure 4-26: Tall Timber PMA maximum pressure following pressure management (Scenario 2) ............. 41 Figure 4-27: Tall Timber 2.1 PMA critical point pressure versus flow .......................................................... 42 Figure 4-28: Tall Timber 2.2 PMA critical point pressure versus flow .......................................................... 42




TABLES

Table 1-1: Stakeholder consultation ......................................................................................................... 11 Table 3-1: Key DSS criteria....................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4-1: Munruben PMA key statistics .................................................................................................. 16 Table 4-2: Munruben PMA average pressure ........................................................................................... 18 Table 4-3: Munruben PMA recommended PRV settings .......................................................................... 19 Table 4-4: Jimboomba East PMA key statistics ........................................................................................ 19 Table 4-5: Jimboomba East PMA average pressure ................................................................................ 22 Table 4-6: Jimboomba East PMA recommended PRV settings ............................................................... 22 Table 4-7: Jimboomba West PMA key statistics ....................................................................................... 23 Table 4-8: Jimboomba West PMA average pressure ............................................................................... 25 Table 4-9: Jimboomba West PMA recommended PRV settings .............................................................. 25 Table 4-10: Cedar Vale PMA key statistics ................................................................................................. 26 Table 4-11: Cedar Vale PMA average pressure ......................................................................................... 28 Table 4-12: Cedar Vale PMA recommended PRV settings ........................................................................ 28 Table 4-13: Flagstone PMA key statistics ................................................................................................... 29 Table 4-14: Flagstone PMA Average Pressure .......................................................................................... 31 Table 4-15: Flagstone PMA recommended PRV settings .......................................................................... 31 Table 4-16: New Beith PMA key statistics .................................................................................................. 32 Table 4-17: New Beith PMA average pressure........................................................................................... 34 Table 4-18: New Beith PMA recommended PRV settings .......................................................................... 34 Table 4-19: Tall Timber PMA key statistics ................................................................................................. 36 Table 4-20: Tall Timber PMAs/PMA average pressure - Scenario 1 .......................................................... 39 Table 4-21: Tall Timber PMA recommended PRV settings ........................................................................ 40 Table 4-22: Tall Timber PMAs average pressure Scenario 2 ..................................................................... 43 Table 4-23: Tall Timber PMA recommended PRV settings ........................................................................ 43 Table 4-24: Summary of PMA maximum pressures ................................................................................... 44 Table 4-25: Summary of infrastructure costs .............................................................................................. 44 Table 5-1: Summary of average pressures ............................................................................................... 45 Table 5-2: Summary of cost benefit analysis ............................................................................................ 45 Table 6-1: Capital Works for Logan South pressure management .......................................................... 47

APPENDICES

Appendix A Figures Appendix B Desired Standards of Service




ABBREVIATIONS

AD Average Day

AHD Australian Height Datum

AZP Average zone pressure

CP Critical point

Council Logan City Council

DMA District metered area

DSS Desired standards of service

DTMR Department of Transport and Main Roads

EP Equivalent Person

FF Fire Flow

GIS Geographic Information System

IDM Infrastructure Demand Model

ILI Infrastructure Leakage Index

HGL Hydraulic Grade Line

LAPMET Leakage and Pressure Management Evaluation and Targeting

LWA Logan Water Alliance

MOL Minimum operating level

PH Peak Hour

PLMP Pressure and Leakage Management Program

PM Pressure management

PMA Pressure Managed Area

PRV Pressure reducing valve

PRI Primary inlet

PS Pump station

QFRS Queensland Fire and Rescue Services

SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition

SEC Secondary inlet




SEQ South East Queensland

SRWP Southern Regional Water Pipeline

TWL Top water level

UARL Unavoidable Average Real Loss

WDS Water development services (team)

WSZ Water supply zone

WSA Water supply area




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The benefits of pressure and leakage management are well documented and have historically provided cost

effective outcomes to managing maximum pressures in a water supply zone. These benefits include:

• reduced water loss

• reduced mains bursts

• operational cost savings

Recent planning has identified that significant areas of the Logan South network currently experience

pressures in excess of DSS maximum (80m) and target pressures (55m).

The objective of this Task was to undertake detailed planning investigations to identify cost effective

opportunities to implement pressure reduction and leakage management in the Logan South water supply

district which would provide a net benefit to Council.

A summary of the existing desired standards of service (DSS) performance with respect to maximum pressures

together with the identified reduction opportunities is presented in the table below. Pressure performance

exceeding target maximum pressure levels are highlighted in orange and those exceeding the maximum

permissible DSS levels are highlighted in red.

PMA Maximum Pressure (m)

Existing Proposed Reduction %

Reduction Cedar Vale PMA 60 48 11 19%

Flagstone PMA 54 41 13 24%

Jimboomba East PMA 102 43 59 57%

Jimboomba West PMA 59 38 20 35%

Munruben PMA 66 37 28 43%

New Beith PMA 92 36 56 61%

Tall Timber PMA 1.1 91 44 47 52%



The table also shows that average maximum pressures in the proposed pressure management areas (PMAs)

can be significantly reduced, with all PMAs below the maximum DSS level of 80 m and also below the target

level of 55 m.

While there are clearly significant DSS compliance drivers that need to be addressed, a cost benefit analysis

in support of the proposed works was also undertaken. For this assessment the Leakage and Pressure

Management Evaluation and Targeting (LAPMET) tool was utilised to assess the reduction in background

leakage that can be achieved from pressure management. The results are presented in the following table.




PMA Cost ($2014) Existing Av. Pressure (m)

Reduction (m)

Annual Savings ($)

Payback Period (yrs)

Munruben PMA $51,000 53 17 $42,764 1

Jimboomba East PMA $489,725 79 37 $40,815 12

Jimboomba West PMA $51,000 43 8 $5,293 10

Cedar Vale PMA $50,000 59 10 $4,631 11

Flagstone PMA $52,000 50 9 $12,785 4

New Beith PMA $86,360 83 46 $39,369 1

Tall Timber PMA 1.1 $108,923 79 44 $61,268 2

Tall Timber PMA 1.2 $50,000 58 28 $10,637 5

Tall Timber PMA 1.3 $50,000 66 27 $14,111 4

Average/Total $989,008 63 25 $231,673 4

• The table shows that the cost for implementing pressure management in the Logan South water supply area is approximately $990,000 ($2014). The table also shows that potential savings from reduced background leakage is approximately $230,000/year if pressure management is implemented and the average payback period for implementing the works is 4 years.

• It is noted that the majority of the annual savings can be achieved at significantly lower cost by excluding the proposed infrastructure for Jimboomba East PMA (50% of cost and 18% of benefits). However, the primary drivers for this area are meeting customer expectations and service standards with respect to maximum pressures. This area is currently exposed to pressures in excess of 100m, more than 25% above our desired maximum of 80m, and 85% higher than our target maximum based on efficiency and best practice.

The Logan Water Alliance recommends that Council:

1. Adopt the proposed pressure management requirements into the Capital Works program for 2015/16

as priority infrastructure at a cost of $990,000.

2. Undertake the detailed design for the proposed infrastructure.




1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Objectives The objective of this Task was to undertake detailed planning investigations to identify opportunities to

implement pressure reduction and leakage management in the Logan South water supply district.

1.2 Scope The scope of this technical investigation included the following:

• a verification of model inputs against latest operational data

• a review of current system performance against desired standards of service (DSS)

• consideration of future network growth in the catchment

• assessment of pressure management opportunities

• cost benefit assessment including Leakage and Pressure Management Evaluation and Targeting (LAPMET) analysis

1.3 Business Drivers The principal business drivers for this study are:

• Compliance. Based on hydraulic modelling outputs the percentage of Logan South customers exposed to pressures in excess of maximum DSS levels are:

o 22% above maximum DSS pressures (80m)

• Improvement. Excessive system pressures can be directly linked to high burst frequencies and increased water loss through leakage. Proactive pressure management will reduce:

o bulk water costs from leakage savings

o operational expenditure on leakage management

• Improvement. Based on hydraulic modelling outputs the percentage of Logan South customers exposed to pressures in excess of target DSS levels are:

o 46% above target (55m) and below maximum DSS pressures (80m)




1.4 Stakeholder Consultation During the course of this study there were several meetings with relevant stakeholders. A summary of the

consultation is provided in Table 1-1

Table 1-1: Stakeholder consultation

Section Stakeholder Areas of Interest

Water Operations

Branch

Lester Bridgham (LWO) Craig Kelly

Steve Young

• Trunk system performance • Fire flow requirements • Proposed boundaries • Known issues • Latest operational knowledge

Water Development

Services

Adam Morris Kumara Herath

• Recent / imminent development that may impact • Constant-flow/ on-demand/potential transition areas (to

identify current and near term DSS requirements)




2. PLANNING CONTEXT

2.1 Background Logan's existing pressure and leakage management program (PLMP) was substantially implemented across

the Logan North water supply zone (WSZ) between 2008 and 2011. Following on from this, pressure and

leakage management is scheduled to be implemented across the Logan East WSZ in 2014.

The benefits of pressure and leakage management are well documented and have historically provided cost

effective outcomes to managing maximum pressures in a water supply zone. These benefits include:

• reduced water loss

• reduced mains bursts

• operational cost savings

Recent planning has identified that significant areas of the Logan South network currently experience

pressures in excess of DSS maximum (80m) and target pressures (55m).

It was therefore prudent to investigate the potential for pressure reduction measures to be implemented in

these high pressure areas in order to realise the benefits of pressure and leakage management in the Logan

South network and improve network performance against DSS.

2.2 Study Area A map of the study area is shown in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1: Study Area

Logan South

Logan North & East




2.3 Existing Situation The primary source of supply to the Logan South water supply network is currently provided by the Southern

Regional Water Pipeline (SRWP) Teviot Road offtake (located in Greenbank), with support provided as

required through a pressure controlled connection from the Logan North water supply network at the site of

the disused Granger Road pump station. Water is supplied from the SRWP Teviot Road offtake to the Pub

Lane reservoir via a 300 mm trunk main, and to the rest of the southern Logan South network South Maclean

pump station. This site is currently undergoing a pump upgrade and pipework rationalisation exercise managed

by Council's Water Operations Branch and supported by the Logan Water Alliance. The support work

undertaken includes a surge analysis of the trunk network upstream and downstream of the South Maclean

Pump Station which has identified potential for significant surge pressures impacting on the network and

customers. The potential impact on system pressures and any mitigating works required has not been included

in the scope of this Task.

While the Round Mountain reservoir was until recently filled via the SRWP Teviot Road offtake and New Beith

375 mm trunk main, a new dedicated 600 mm trunk main and SRWP connection at Pub Lane was

commissioned in late November 2014. As further network connections are commissioned the Pub Lane SRWP

connection and Round mountain reservoir will support the entire Logan South network and the Teviot Road

connection will be taken offline.

The Spring Mountain and New Beith water supply areas are currently supplied from the Spring Mountain

reservoir, which is in turn supplied from the Round Mountain reservoir via the Pub Lane and Lyndale pump

stations. The Pub Lane pump station is also planned to be upgraded in late 2014. This will consolidate the

pumping currently undertaken by the existing Pub Lane and Lyndale pumps and also mitigate the need for

additional pumping at Tall Timber Road.

Over 60% of the connected properties in Logan South are provided with a constant flow or restricted service.

The remaining properties have a full on-demand service. All future connection excepting some minor infill are

anticipated to be on-demand.

2.4 Previous Studies The following planning studies have been used to inform this task:

• Logan East Water Supply DMA Management & Fire Flow Augmentations Detailed Planning (LWA, Sep.2013). Task No.90-11-92

o The objective of this task was to undertake detailed planning of the proposed infrastructure required to implement and manage District Metered Areas (DMAs) and pressure management in Logan East while maintaining adequate levels of fire flow protection

• Logan South Flow Monitoring, Project Development & Detailed Planning (LWA, Sep.2013). Task No.90-12-05

o The objective of this task was to improve flow monitoring in Logan South water supply network by installing flow meters at strategic locations on the trunk main network to create DMAs and bulk metered zones. This monitoring would then facilitate demand and leakage management.




3. METHODOLOGY The methodology adopted for this project focussed on the following four key areas:

• Model Verification

o The hydraulic model was checked against the latest GIS data. This was to ensure that all updates and corrections to the GIS data had been incorporated into the model

o The demand category at each node in the model was checked against the GIS data to ensure that the correct fire flows had been allocated

o The latest DSS was also adopted into the model

• Hydraulic performance was verified against ClearSCADA data (where available)

• Identification of pressure management opportunities

o An initial outline of proposed pressure management boundaries was prepared for discussion with Council's Water Operations and Water Development Services (WDS) teams

o The proposed pressure management areas (PMAs) and pipeline augmentations were presented and discussed. The feedback obtained from the meetings was recorded and used to finalise planned works

o The proposed boundaries and pressure reduction valve (PRV) locations were also reviewed by considering various options to minimise pipeline augmentations required to achieve DSS. Dual inlets were considered to provide fire flow requirements or redundant supplies that meet peak hour demands where appropriate.

• The GIS information was used to identify suitable locations for the proposed infrastructure in a road verge or council park area. Locations that fell within Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) road corridors were avoided.

3.1 Assumptions 3.1.1 Infrastructure Cost Rates Unit rates were used to determine the costs of pipeline augmentations and boundary valves. PRV/telemetry

costs were based on market rates obtained for the current delivery of the Logan East PLMP by the Logan

Water Alliance (Work Package No. 7638).

3.1.2 Bulk Water Costs For the purposes of the cost benefit analysis the 2015-16 bulk water cost of $3.062/kL was assumed for the

LAPMAT analysis.

3.1.3 DMA vs PMA For clarity in this report all the new pressure managed areas are designated as PMAs only, however based on

the Logan East PLMP and the outcomes for similar small pressure management only sites, a metered

arrangement with a dual pilot PRV allowing moderate flow modulation is likely. This would allow all

appropriately sized PMAs to be monitored as DMAs.

It is anticipated that the larger areas and those with dual feeds may be upgraded to full flow modulation DMA

status in consultation with Ops as part of the preliminary design process.




3.2 Key DSS Criteria The key DSS criteria used in this study are presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Key DSS criteria

Service pressures

Minimum operating pressure at PH

On demand areas – 22m at the property boundary based on reservoir at minimum operating level (MOL). MOL defined as 15% of storage height or top of emergency storage. Constant flow areas – 10m at the property boundary based on reservoir at MOL. MOL defined as 15% of storage height or top of emergency storage.

Maximum operating pressure 80 m at the property boundary based on the reservoir at TWL

Target maximum operating pressure 55 m at the property boundary based on the reservoir level at TWL

Fire fighting

System pressure On demand areas 12 m minimum at property boundary

Constant flow areas no fire service provided

Fire flow


Rural Residential 7.5 L/s for 2 hrs

Rural Commercial / Industrial 15 L/s for 2 hrs

Residential 15 L/s for 2 hrs

Commercial & Industrial 30 L/s for 4 hrs

Special risk / hazard to be advised by Logan City Council (LCC)

Background demand 2/3 PH (as per DEWS requirements)

Reservoir level Minimum Operating Level (MOL)

A full copy of Council’s water DSS is presented in Appendix B.




4. NETWORK HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS This chapter will document the detailed assessment undertaken for each of the network areas currently failing

DSS target or maximum pressure criteria that have significant potential for pressure management.

4.1 Munruben PMA The proposed Munruben PMA is comprised of 245 on-demand properties and 729 constant flow properties

with an average daily demand of 0.53 ML/d. The area is currently serviced by the Round Mountain reservoir;

however an alternative supply point is also available via the Granger Road PRV. There is no existing local

pressure management in the area.

The key statistics of the proposed PMA are presented in Table 4-1.

Table 4-1: Munruben PMA key statistics

PMA Name Munruben

No of metered properties 974 % residential 98.6% Length of mains(km) 42.6 Min elevation (m) 12.5 Max elevation (m) 52.5 Elevation Difference (m) 40 Operational MD demand 2013 (L/s) 6.1

The hydraulic performance of the proposed Munruben PMA was modelled, and the existing maximum pressure

distribution for this zone is presented in Figure 4-1.

Figure 4-1: Munruben PMA existing maximum pressures




Figure 4-1 indicates significant areas of Munruben experience pressures above the target maximum of 55m,

and a small number above the maximum DSS allowance of 80m. This provides a significant opportunity for

pressure management.

The proposed boundary and location of works required for pressure management are shown in Figure A-1 in

Appendix A and are identified as:

• A new primary inlet structure will be installed at the junction of Greenhill Road and Crowson Lane to supply the PMA from Round Mountain reservoir.

• The secondary inlet structure will be the existing PRV at Granger Road to supply the PMA via the Greenbank water supply zone.

• A new boundary valve at 4378-4392 Mt Lindesay Highway is also proposed.

This arrangement will provide a redundant supply of water into the PMA under standard flows, routine

maintenance and breakdown operations. Both inlets will fully open in the event of a fire. The maximum pressure

distribution after implementation of the proposed works is presented in Figure 4-2.

Figure 4-2: Munruben PMA maximum pressure following pressure management

As demonstrated in Figure 4-2, a significant reduction in maximum pressures can be achieved with 99% of the

proposed PMA reticulation shown to be below the target maximum pressure of 55 m.

The hydraulic performance of the Munruben PMA is shown in Figure 4-3.




Figure 4-3: Munruben PMA critical point pressure versus flow

The solid blue and green lines indicate the pressure at the critical point when supply is from the primary inlet

(PRI) or secondary inlet (SEC) respectively, without pressure management.

The existing pressure at the critical point, situated in a constant flow area varies between 22 and 44m when

the area is supplied by the primary PRV. The pressure variations are due to operation of the South Maclean

pump station.

The pressure at the critical point remains around 46m when supplied by the secondary PRV (Granger Rd).

The critical point’s pressure stability is due the Granger Road PRV receiving its supply from the Greenbank

reservoirs in Logan North.

The dotted blue and green lines indicate the pressure at the critical point would be approximately 15m

throughout the day, once pressure management is implemented. Pressures in the on-demand areas of the

Munruben PMA are also maintained above 25m and therefore satisfy the minimum DSS requirements.

The existing and proposed average pressures for the Munruben PMA are presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2: Munruben PMA average pressure

Pressure Average PMA Pressures (m)

Existing Proposed Reduction % Reduction

Maximum 65.7 37.3 28.4 43.2%

Average 52.5 36.0 16.5 31.4%

In addition to the average maximum pressure reductions indicated in Table 4-2, absolute maximum pressure

will be reduced from approximately 84m down to 55m, significantly reducing the potential for future bursts and

background leakage.




The recommended pressure management settings for the primary and secondary PRVs are displayed in Table

4-3.

Table 4-3: Munruben PMA recommended PRV settings

Flow step (%) Flow rate (L/s)

PRV setting at Primary (m)

PRV setting at Secondary (m)

Maximum Standard flow 9.6 36 65

Fire flow applied 15 Fully open Fully open

4.2 Jimboomba East PMA The proposed Jimboomba East PMA is comprised of 361 on-demand and 88 constant flow properties with an

average daily demand of 0.74 ML/d. There is also a standpipe located at Cerina Circuit for water carrier use.

The available flow rate at this standpipe has been limited via an orifice plate to 15 L/s. The area can be supplied

directly off a 200 mm trunk main from Round Mountain reservoir via St Jude Court pump station. This area

can also be supplied via the South Maclean pump station/Travis Road reservoir system, which is as the worst

case for maximum pressures, is the modelled scenario. The proposed PMA can be supplied via either

arrangement without the need for any additional infrastructure. There is no existing pressure management in

the area.

The key statistics for the proposed PMA are presented in Table 4-4.

Table 4-4: Jimboomba East PMA key statistics

PMA Name Jimboomba East

No of metered properties 449 % residential 53% Length of mains(km) 16.6 Min elevation (m) 22.5 Max elevation (m) 47.9 Elevation Difference (m) 25.4 Operational MD demand 2013 (L/s) 8.5

The hydraulic performance of the proposed Jimboomba East PMA was modelled, and the existing maximum

pressure distribution for this zone is presented in Figure 4-4.




Figure 4-4: Jimboomba East PMA existing maximum pressures

Figure 4-4 demonstrates the whole area experiences pressure above the DSS maximum of 80m. This provides

a significant opportunity for pressure management.

The proposed boundary and location of works required for the Jimboomba East PMA are shown in Figure A-

2 in Appendix A and are identified as:

• A new primary inlet structure will be installed near 5390 Mount Lindesay Highway

• A new secondary inlet structure to be installed near 1-17 South Street Jimboomba

• Two new boundary valves at Cusack Lane and Johanna Street are also proposed.

In addition approximately 810m of network augmentations were required and are identified as:

• 350m of DN150 pipe in Cusack Lane

• 250m of DN150 pipe in Johanna Street

• 130m of DN150 pipe in Honora Street

• 60m of DN150 pipe in Grandview Road

• 20m of DN200 pipe at the junction of Brisbane Street and Tamborine Street

This arrangement will provide a redundant supply into the PMA under standard flows, routine maintenance

and breakdown operations. Both inlets will fully open in the event of a fire. The maximum pressure distribution

for this zone, with pressure management implemented is presented in Figure 4-5.




Figure 4-5: Jimboomba East PMA maximum pressure following pressure management

As demonstrated in Figure 4-5, a significant reduction in maximum pressures can be achieved with 99% of the

proposed PMA reticulation shown to be below the maximum pressure of 80 m and 75% below the target

maximum of 55 m. The remaining model nodes still indicate pressures above 80 m are located on the 200 mm

trunk main transitioning through the PMA.

The hydraulic performance of the critical point for the Jimboomba East PMA is shown in Figure 4-6.

Figure 4-6: Jimboomba East PMA critical point pressure versus flow

0

5

10

15

20

25

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Jimboomba_Whole DMA

Pressure at CP(W/O PM)_PRI Pressure at CP(W/O PM)_SEC Pressure at CP(with PM)_PRI Pressure at CP(with PM)_SEC PRV Flow




The solid blue and green lines indicate the pressure at the critical point when supply is from the primary inlet

(PRI) or secondary inlet (SEC) respectively, without pressure management.

The existing pressure at the critical point, situated in an on-demand area, varies between 74m during low flow

periods, to 46 m during peak demand periods when the PMA is supplied by either PRV. The pressure variations

are due to operation of the South Maclean pump station.

The dotted blue and green lines indicate that the pressure at the critical point would be stabilised at

approximately 25m throughout the day, once pressure management is implemented and therefore satisfies

the minimum pressure DSS requirements.

The existing and proposed average pressures for the Jimboomba East PMA are presented in Table 4-5.

Table 4-5: Jimboomba East PMA average pressure



Maximum 102.1 43.4 58.7 57%

Average 79.2 42.2 37.0 47%

In addition to the average maximum pressure reductions indicated in Table 4-5, absolute maximum pressure

will be reduced from approximately 112m down to 54m, significantly reducing the potential for future bursts

and background leakage in the PMA.

The recommended pressure management settings for the primary and secondary PRVs are shown in Table

4-6. These settings will result in a constant 25m pressure at the critical point.

Table 4-6: Jimboomba East PMA recommended PRV settings




Maximum Standard flow 20 54 48

Fire flow applied 30 Fully open Fully open

It is noted that the proposed Jimboomba East PMA has a relatively high proportion of non-residential

customers. The potential impact on any process or private firefighting requirements in excess of minimum DSS

has not been included in the scope of this study. It is recommended that these potential impacts of pressure

management are communicated to all impacted non-residential customers as part of Council’s due diligence

and customer service standards.




4.3 Jimboomba West PMA The proposed Jimboomba West area is comprised of 353 constant flow properties with an average daily

demand of 0.09 ML/d. There are no on-demand properties within the proposed PMA boundary. The area is

currently supplied directly off a 200 mm trunk main from Round Mountain reservoir. There is no existing

pressure management in the area.

The key statistics for the proposed PMA are presented in Table 4-7.

Table 4-7: Jimboomba West PMA key statistics

PMA Name Jimboomba West

No of metered properties 353 % residential 100% Length of mains(km) 11.3 Min elevation (m) 26.1 Max elevation (m) 50.5 Elevation Difference (m) 24.4 Operational MD demand 2013 (L/s) 1

The hydraulic performance of the proposed Jimboomba West PMA was modelled, and the existing maximum


Figure 4-7: Jimboomba West PMA existing maximum pressures

Figure 4-7 demonstrates the majority of the area experiencing pressure above the DSS maximum of 80m. This

provides a significant opportunity for pressure management.




This PMA is proposed with only a single feed as no secondary supply into the PMA is available or required.

The proposed boundary and location of works required for the Jimboomba West PMA are shown in Figure A-

2 in Appendix A and are identified as:

• A new inlet structure to be installed at the junction of Cusack Lane and St Jude Circuit.

• A new boundary valve at 98-106 Henderson Road is also proposed.

The maximum pressure distribution after implementation of the proposed works is presented in Figure 4-8.

Figure 4-8: Jimboomba West PMA maximum pressure following pressure management

As demonstrated in Figure 4-8, a significant reduction in maximum pressures can be achieved with 100% of

the proposed PMA reticulation shown to be below the target maximum pressure of 55 m.

The hydraulic performance of the critical point for the Jimboomba West PMA is shown in Figure 4-9 .




Figure 4-9: Jimboomba West PMA critical point pressure versus flow

The existing pressure at the critical point, situated in a constant flow area, varies between 35m and 19 m., and

subsequent to pressure management, varies between 13 m and 25 m. This variability is due to headloss under

maximum day conditions through small diameter pipes in the constant flow areas of the network.

The existing and proposed average pressures for the Jimboomba West PMA are presented in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8: Jimboomba West PMA average pressure



Maximum 58.5 38.4 20.2 35%

Average 42.6 35.1 7.5 18%

In addition to the average maximum pressure reductions indicated in Table 4-8, absolute maximum pressures

will be reduced from approximately 68m down to 48m, significantly reducing the potential for future bursts and

background leakage in the PMA.

The recommended pressure management settings for the primary PRV is shown in Table 4-9. These settings

will result in a minimum 13m pressure at the critical point and therefore satisfies the minimum pressure DSS

requirements.

Table 4-9: Jimboomba West PMA recommended PRV settings

Flow step (%) Flow rate (L/s) PRV setting at Primary (m)

Maximum Standard flow 1.6 44

Fire flow applied Not Applicable Not Applicable

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Jimboomba_2

Pressure at CP(W/O PM)_PRI Pressure at CP(with PM)_PRI PRV Flow




4.4 Cedar Vale PMA The proposed Cedar Vale PMA is comprised of 159 on-demand and 20 constant flow properties with an

average daily demand of 0.14 ML/d. The area is currently supplied via the Woodhill reservoir. There is no

existing pressure management in the area.

The key statistics of the proposed PMA are presented in Table 4-10.

Table 4-10: Cedar Vale PMA key statistics

PMA Name Cedar Vale No of metered properties 179 % residential 99% Length of mains(km) 7.09 Min elevation (m) 26.6 Max elevation (m) 62.2 Elevation Difference (m) 35.6 Operational MD demand 2013 (L/s) 1.7

The hydraulic performance of the proposed Cedar Vale PMA was modelled, and the existing maximum


Figure 4-10: Cedar Vale PMA existing maximum pressures

Table 4-10 demonstrates the significant areas of the Cedar Vale area experiencing pressure above the target

pressure of 55m. This provides an opportunity for pressure management.

The PMA will be served by a single supply point. The proposed boundary and location of works required for

the proposed Cedar Vale PMA are shown in Figure A-3 in Appendix A and are identified as:

• A new inlet structure to be installed at the junction of Cedar Grove Road and Irwin Road.




As the properties in this PMA are classified as rural residential, a 7.5 L/s fire flow requirement has been

adopted for this area. Under this arrangement, no network augmentations are required. However, if a 15 L/s

fire flow requirement is preferred then 275 m of DN150 pipe is required in Spotted Gum Court

The PRV will fully open in the event of a fire. The maximum pressure distribution after implementation of the

proposed works is presented in Figure 4-11.

Figure 4-11: Cedar Vale PMA maximum pressure following pressure management


the proposed PMA reticulation below the target maximum pressure of 55 m.

The hydraulic performance of the proposed Cedar Vale PMA is shown in Figure 4-12.




Figure 4-12: Cedar Vale PMA critical point pressure versus flow

The current pressure at the critical point, situated in an on-demand area, varies little between 33 and 36 m.

Following pressure management, critical point pressure stabilises at 25m throughout the day.

The existing and proposed average pressures for the Cedar Vale PMA are presented in Table 4-11.

Table 4-11: Cedar Vale PMA average pressure



Maximum 59.8 48.4 11.4 19%

Average 58.5 48.4 10.2 17%


will be reduced from approximately 72m down to 61m, significantly reducing the future potential for bursts and

background leakage in the PMA.

The recommended pressure management settings for the PRV are shown in Table 4-12. These settings will

result in a constant 25m pressure at the critical point which satisfies the minimum pressure DSS requirements.

Table 4-12: Cedar Vale PMA recommended PRV settings




Fire flow applied 15 Fully open

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Cedar Vale





4.5 Flagstone PMA The proposed Flagstone area is comprised of 469 on-demand and 224 constant flow properties with an

average daily demand of 0.35 ML/d. The area is supplied from Round Mountain reservoir and there is no

existing pressure management.

The key statistics of the proposed PMA area are presented in Table 4-13.

Table 4-13: Flagstone PMA key statistics

PMA Name Flagstone


The hydraulic performance of Flagstone PMA was modelled, and the existing maximum pressure distribution

for this zone is presented in Figure 4-13.

Figure 4-13: Flagstone PMA existing maximum pressures

Figure 4-13 shows approximately half the area experiencing pressure above the target DSS of 55m. This

provides an opportunity for pressure management.

The PMA will be served by a single supply point as no secondary supply into the PMA is available or required.

The proposed boundary and location of works required for Flagstone PMA is shown in Figure A-4 in Appendix

A and are identified as: 90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Page 29 of 62 Rev: 1



• A new inlet structure to be installed at the junction of Homestead Drive and Poinciana Drive

• Two new boundary valves at Sugar Gum Close and Coachwood Drive are also proposed

In the event of a fire the PRV will fully open. The maximum pressure distribution after implementation of the

proposed works is presented in Figure 4-14.

Figure 4-14: Flagstone PMA maximum pressure following pressure management



The hydraulic performance of the Flagstone PMA is shown in Figure 4-15.

Figure 4-15: Flagstone PMA critical point pressure versus flow

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Flagstone

Pressure at CP(W/O PM)_PRI Pressure at CP(with PM)_PRI Pressure at CP(with PM)_SEC PRV Flow




The existing pressure at the critical point, situated in an on-demand area, varies between 28 and 37 m.

Following pressure management, critical point stabilises at 25m, satisfying the minimum pressure DSS for this

area.

The existing and proposed average pressures for the Flagstone PMA are presented in Table 4-14.

Table 4-14: Flagstone PMA Average Pressure



Maximum 54.0 41.3 12.7 24%

Average 49.9 41.2 8.7 17%


will be reduced from approximately 70m down to 57 m, reducing the potential for future bursts and background

leakage in the PMA.

The recommended pressure management settings for the proposed PRV are shown in Table 4-15. These

settings will result in a constant 25m pressure at the critical point which satisfies the minimum pressure DSS

requirements.

Table 4-15: Flagstone PMA recommended PRV settings




Fire flow applied 30 Fully open




4.6 New Beith The proposed New Beith area is comprised of 306 constant flow properties with an average daily demand of

0.52 ML/d. There is also a standpipe located near Pub Lane reservoir for water carrier use. The area is supplied

from Spring Mountain reservoir and there is no existing pressure management.

The key statistics of the proposed PMA area are presented in Table 4-16.

Table 4-16: New Beith PMA key statistics

PMA Name New Beith


The hydraulic performance of New Beith PMA was modelled, and the existing maximum pressure distribution


Figure 4-16: New Beith PMA existing maximum pressures

Figure 4-16 shows majority of the areas experiencing pressure above the maximum DSS of 80m. This provides

a significant opportunity for pressure management.

The PMA will be served by a single supply point. The proposed boundary and location of works required for

New Beith PMA are shown in Figure A-5 in Appendix A and are identified as:

• A new inlet supply point located on Pub Lane




In addition, approximately 65 m of network augmentation is required and is identified as:

• 65m of 200 mm pipe in Pub Lane


Figure 4-17: New Beith PMA maximum pressure following pressure management



The hydraulic performance of the New Beith PMA is shown in Figure 4-18.

Figure 4-18: New Beith PMA critical point pressure versus flow

-5

0

5

10

15

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Pub Lane_3_Constant Flow





As demonstrated in Figure 4-18, at the critical point which is situated in a constant flow area, pressure varies

between 46 and 72 m. Following pressure management, the critical point pressure stabilises at approximately

13m.

The existing and proposed average pressures for the New Beith PMA are presented in Table 4-17.

Table 4-17: New Beith PMA average pressure



Maximum 92.0 35.7 56.3 61%

Average 83.3 37.2 46.1 55%


will be reduced from approximately 110m down to 56 m, significantly reducing the potential for future bursts

and background leakage in the PMA.

The recommended pressure management settings for the primary PRV are shown in Table 4-18. These

settings will result in a constant 13m pressure at the critical point which satisfies the minimum pressure DSS

requirements.

Table 4-18: New Beith PMA recommended PRV settings

Flow step Flow rate (L/s) PRV setting at Primary (m)


Fire flow applied Not applicable Not applicable




4.7 Tall Timber PMA The Tall Timber area currently has 1,017 constant flow properties with average daily demand of 0.22 ML/d.

The area is currently supplied from a combination of Spring Mountain reservoir and pumps at Pub Lane and

Lyndale stations, there is no existing pressure management. Lyndale pump station is due to be

decommissioned in 2015 with pumping requirements consolidated through an upgrade at Pub Lane pump

station. A pressure managed contingency connection is also available from the recently commissioned Pub

Lane SRWP connection. This area is considered a transition zone as new on-demand developments are

creating opportunities to upgrade the existing constant flow network to on-demand.

To accommodate the transitional nature of the network in this area a number of scenarios were run to ensure

the longevity and flexibility of infrastructure proposals. The Tall Timber area therefore has been split into three

proposed sub areas; Tall Timber 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3. This arrangement is presented in schematic form in Figure

4-19.

Figure 4-19: Schematic of Tall Timber PMA arrangement (Scenario 1)

Tall Timber 1.1 and 1.3 are supplied by the 200 mm trunk main fed by the Teviot Road SRWP offtake. Tall

Timber 1.2 cascades off Tall Timber 1.1.

The proposed boundary and location of works required for Tall Timber PMAs are shown in Figure A-6 in

Appendix A and are identified as:

• A new inlet structure for Tall Timber 1.1 PMA to be located at the junction of New Beith Road and Pub

Lane.

New Beith SRWP Connection Teviot Rd Connection

Spring Mountain Reservoir

Round Mountain Reservoir

Tall Timber

1.1

Pub Lane Pump

Station

Lyndale Pump Station (to be decommissioned 2015)

DN

300

DN200 DN200

DN

600

DN375

DN

375

DN

200

Tall Timber

1.2

Tall Timber

1.3

New Beith PMA

DN

600 contingency connection

To South Maclean PS

DN375DN600




• A new inlet structure for Tall Timber 1.2 PMA to be located at the junction of Red Gum Road and Lyon

Drive

• A new inlet for Tall Timber 1.3 PMA to be installed at Dungaree Drive

In addition approximately 160 m of network augmentations were required and are identified as:

• 160m of 100 mm pipe at Pub Lane

The key statistics of the proposed PMA areas are presented in Table 4-19.

Table 4-19: Tall Timber PMA key statistics

PMA Name Tall Timber (All)

Tall Timber 1.1 (PMA)



No of metered properties 839 532 164 143 % residential 100% 100% 100% 100% Length of mains(km) 34.5 22.5 5.3 6.7 Min elevation (m) 40 40 40 51.2 Max elevation (m) 102.8 91.5 64.8 102.8 Elevation Difference (m) 62.8 51.5 24.8 51.6 Operational MD demand 2013 (L/s) 2.6 2.2 0.39 0.37

The hydraulic performance of Tall Timber area was modelled, and the existing maximum pressure distribution


Figure 4-20: Tall Timber Area PMA existing maximum pressures

Figure 4-20 shows significant areas of the zone experiencing pressure above the target maximum DSS of

80m. This provides an opportunity for pressure management.




Two main scenarios were analysed for the Tall Timber area:

• Scenario 1: Existing situation and reticulation

• Scenario 2: Existing network with all known short term development

4.7.1 Scenario 1 The proposed supply points for the three PMAs are:

• The inlet for Tall Timber 1.1 PMA is located at the junction of New Beith Road and Pub Lane

• The inlet for Tall Timber 1.2 PMA is located at the junction of Red Gum Road and Lyon Drive, with

Tall Timber 1.2 PMA cascading off Tall Timber 1.1 PMA

• The new inlet for Tall Timber 1.3 PMA is located at Dungaree Drive


Figure 4-21: Tall Timber PMA maximum pressure following pressure management (Scenario 1)



The hydraulic performance of the Tall Timber 1.1 PMA, Tall Timber 1.2 PMA and Tall Timber 1.3 PMA is shown

in Figure 4-22, Figure 4-23 and Figure 4-24.




Figure 4-22: Tall Timber 1.1 PMA critical point pressure versus flow (Scenario 1)

As demonstrated in Figure 4-22, the current critical point pressure in Tall Timber 1.1, which is situated in a

constant flow area, varies between 38 and 61 m. Following pressure management pressure at the critical point

stabilises at 13m.


From Figure 4-23 we can see pressure at the critical point of Tall Timber 1.2 PMA, which is situated in a

constant flow area, and with the upstream pressure management at Tall Timber 1.1 implemented, is steady at

just over 40m. This provides significant further pressure management potential for this cascading sub zone.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Tall Timber 1.2





Following further pressure management of this constant flow area, critical point pressures are further reduced

to 13m.


As presented in Figure 4-24, the critical point pressure in Tall Timber 1.3, which is situated in a constant flow

area, varies from 30 to 48 m. This pressure variation is attributed to the operation of Lyndale pump station.

Following pressure management, critical point pressure is steady at 13m.

The existing and proposed average pressures for the Tall Timber 1.1 PMA, Tall Timber 1.2 PMA and Tall

Timber 1.3 PMA are presented in Table 4-20.

Table 4-20: Tall Timber PMAs/PMA average pressure - Scenario 1

PMA Area Average PMA Pressures (m)



Maximum 91.4 43.8 47.6 52%

Average 79.3 34.9 44.4 56%


Maximum 58.2 30.4 27.8 48%

Average 58.1 30.4 27.7 48%


Maximum 74.4 39.4 35.0 47%

Average 66.3 39.4 26.7 40%

The absolute peak pressures in the low lying area of the Tall Timber PMAs will be reduced from approximately

113m down to 63m, significantly reducing the potential for future bursts and background leakage in the PMA.

The recommended pressure management settings for the PRVs are shown in Table 4-21. These settings will

result in a constant 13m pressure at the critical points which satisfies the minimum pressure DSS requirements.

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Tall Timber 1.3





Table 4-21: Tall Timber PMA recommended PRV settings

PMA/PMA Area Flow step (%) Flow rate (L/s) PRV setting at Primary (m)







Tall Timber1.3 (PMA)



4.7.2 Scenario 2 The main intent of scenario 2 is to ensure that short and medium term infrastructure development does not

compromise the immediate PMA proposals and to ensure DSS levels can be maintained if service standards

in the constant flow areas transition to an on-demand level.

It is likely that planned development under this scenario will hydraulically connect the Tall Timber 1.1 and 1.3

sub zones. These connected zones would then form a single PMA, henceforth known as Tall Timber 2.1. The

remaining sub zone Tall Timber 2.2 (formerly 1.2) is supplied similarly to Scenario 1, cascading via the Tall

Timber 2.1 PMA.

A schematic of this arrangement is presented in Figure 4-25.

Figure 4-25: Schematic of Tall Timber PMA arrangement (Scenario 2)

New Beith SRWP Connection Teviot Rd Connection

Spring Mountain Reservoir

Round Mountain Reservoir

Pub Lane Pump

Station

DN

300DN200 DN200

DN

600

DN375

DN

375

DN

200

Tall Timber

2.2

New Beith PMA

Tall Timber 2.1

DN

600

DN375DN600 To South Maclean PS

DN

200

contingency connection




The proposed boundary and location of works required for the future Tall Timber PMAs are shown in Figure

A-7 in Appendix A. The infrastructure requirements are identical to Scenario 1.


Figure 4-26: Tall Timber PMA maximum pressure following pressure management (Scenario 2)


the proposed PMA reticulation below the target maximum pressure of 55 m, however both PRVs have to be

operated in order to meet DSS.

The hydraulic performance of the Tall Timber 2.1 PMA and Tall Timber 2.2 PMA are shown in Figure 4-27 and

Figure 4-28.




Figure 4-27: Tall Timber 2.1 PMA critical point pressure versus flow

As demonstrated in Figure 4-27, the existing critical point pressure, situated in an on-demand area, varies

between 27 and 46 m. Following pressure management, pressure at the critical point stabilises at 25 m.

Figure 4-28: Tall Timber 2.2 PMA critical point pressure versus flow

From Figure 4-28 and similarly to the outcomes of scenario 1, we can see pressure at the critical point of Tall

Timber 2.2 PMA, situated in a constant flow area, with the upstream pressure management at Tall Timber 2.1

implemented, steady at just under 60m. This provides significant further pressure management potential for

this cascading sub zone. Following pressure management, critical point stabilises at 13m.

The existing and proposed average pressures for the Tall Timber 2.1 PMA and Tall Timber 2.2 PMA are

presented in Table 4-22.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Tall Timber 2.1

Pressure at CP(W/O PM) Pressure at CP(with PM) PRVs Combined Flow

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Flow

(L/s

)

Pres

sure

at

Criti

cal P

oint

(m)

Tall Timber 2.2





Table 4-22: Tall Timber PMAs average pressure Scenario 2

PMA/PMA Area Pressure Average PMA Pressures (m)



Maximum 90.9 65.1 25.8 28%

Average 75.1 59.5 15.6 21%


Maximum 77.1 30.4 46.7 61%

Average 78.8 30.4 48.4 61%


in Tall Timber 2.1 PMA will be reduced from approximately 111m down to 87 m, significantly reducing the

potential for future bursts and background leakage in the PMA.

The recommended pressure management settings for the PRVs are shown in Table 4-23. These settings will

result in a constant 25m pressure at the critical point of Tall Timber 2.1 PMA and 13m at the critical point of

Tall Timber 2.2 PMA, which satisfies the minimum pressure DSS requirements of these areas.

Table 4-23: Tall Timber PMA recommended PRV settings

PMA Area Flow step Flow rate at Primary (L/s)


Flow rate at Secondary(L/s)


Tall Timber 2.1

Maximum Standard flow 5.8 73.5 3.4 53.5

Fire flow applied 15 Fully Open 15 Fully Open

Tall Timber 2.2

Maximum Standard flow 0.6 28 - -

Fire flow applied Not applicable Not applicable - -

As all the infrastructure requirements are identical for the existing case (Scenario 1) and the future case

(Scenario 2) it is recommended that Scenario 1 be adopted as an immediate pressure management solution

for the Tall Timber area. This allows for the provision of pressure management under the existing scenario

whilst allowing for increased service levels to constant flow properties transitioning to on-demand and also

accommodating imminent on-demand development in the area.

4.7.3 Additional Scenarios In order to explore and identify potential savings via reduced pumping through Pub Lane and Lyndale pump

stations, a scenario was investigated which looked at the opportunity to service the Tall Timber and New Beith

PMAs with a Round Mountain gravity supply via the 375 mm trunk main currently feeding the reservoir. This

main became redundant as an inlet main when the new SRWP connection at Pub Lane was commissioned in

November 2014. Analysis indicated that this potential 375mm supply was unable to supply the areas with

minimum DSS under all demand conditions. It is also anticipated that a new connection between this main and

the Round Mountain reservoir outlet main will be made in the short term to provide an additional flow path and

network capacity. Under these condition the main will again be utilised as a critical part of the trunk network. 90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Page 43 of 62 Rev: 1



4.8 Pressure Management Summary A summary of the DSS performance with respect to maximum pressures is presented in Table 4-24. Pressure

performance exceeding target maximum pressure levels are highlighted in orange and those exceeding the

maximum permissible DSS levels are highlighted in red.

Table 4-24: Summary of PMA maximum pressures

DMA/PMA Maximum Pressure (m)


Cedar Vale PMA 60 48 11 19%









From the data presented it can be shown that average maximum pressures in the proposed PMAs are

significant reduced, with all PMAs below the maximum DSS (80m) and also below the target level (55m).

4.9 Infrastructure Cost Summary The infrastructure required to implement pressure management within the Logan South network and costs

associated with undertaking these works are summarised in Table 4-25.

Table 4-25: Summary of infrastructure costs

PMA Infrastructure Requirements Capital Cost

Cedar Vale PMA 1 PRV $50,000

Flagstone PMA 2* Boundary valves 1 PRV $52,000

Jimboomba East PMA

790m of 150mm main 20m of 200mm main 2*Boundary valves 2*PRVs

$489,725

Jimboomba West PMA 1 Boundary valve 1 PRV $51,000

Munruben PMA 1 Boundary valve 1 PRV $51,000

New Beith PMA 65m of 200mm main 1 Boundary valve 1 PRV

$86,360

Tall Timber 1.1 PMA 160m of 100mm main 1 PRV $108,923

Tall Timber 1.2 PMA 1 PRV $50,000 Tall Timber 1.3 PMA 1 PRV $50,000

Total $989,008




5. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS A cost benefit analysis was also undertaken to support the proposed pressure management in the Logan

South network. For this assessment the Leakage and Pressure Management Evaluation and Targeting

(LAPMET) tool was utilised to assess the reduction in background leakage that can be achieved from pressure

management. The average pressures before and after the proposed pressure management are presented in

Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Summary of average pressures

DMA/PMA Average Pressure (m)





Cedar Vale PMA 59 48 10 17%






Given the lack of current metering within the Logan South network to allow an accurate assessment of current

leakage levels in these areas, an Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) value of 1.5 has been adopted as a

measure of existing performance. While the real leakage levels are likely to be much higher, adopting this

value provides a conservative approach to the cost benefit analysis.

A summary of the cost benefit analysis is presented in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Summary of cost benefit analysis

DMA/PMA Cost ($2014) Annual Savings ($)

Payback Period (yrs)

Munruben PMA $51,000 $42,764 1

Jimboomba East PMA $489,725 $40,815 12

Jimboomba West PMA $51,000 $5,293 10

Cedar Vale PMA $50,000 $4,631 11

Flagstone PMA $52,000 $12,785 4

New Beith PMA $86,360 $39,369 1

Tall Timber PMA 1.1 $108,923 $61,268 2

Tall Timber PMA 1.2 $50,000 $10,637 5

Tall Timber PMA 1.3 $50,000 $14,111 4

Average/Total $989,008 $231,673 4




From the analysis presented in Table 5-2 and based on the overall savings provided compared to the total

proposed scheme costs, a payback period of 4 years has been calculated for undertaking pressure

management in the Logan South network. This assessment is based purely on the reduction in background

leakage. When also considering a significant reduction in mains bursts and the increasing bulk water costs

this payback period will reduce further.




6. CAPITAL WORKS PROGRAM IMPLICATIONS It is recommended that the following items presented in Table 6-1 be added to the capital works program:

Table 6-1: Capital Works for Logan South pressure management

Item Description Capital Cost Year Required Comments

1

Cedar Vale PMA 1 PRV Flagstone PMA 2* Boundary valves 1 PRV Jimboomba East PMA 790m of 150mm main 20m of 200mm main 2*Boundary valves 2*PRV's Jimboomba West PMA 1 Boundary valve 1 PRV Munruben PMA 1 Boundary valve 1 PRV New Beith PMA 65m of 200mm main 1 Boundary valve 1 PRV Tall Timber 1.1 PMA 160m of 100mm main 1 PRV Tall Timber 1.2 PMA 1 PRV Tall Timber 1.3 PMA 1 PRV

$990,000 2015/16

Infrastructure may be required to facilitate full

utilisation of South Maclean pump

station and defer Chambers Flat

SRWP connection.




7. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions are drawn from this study:

• The percentage of Logan South customers currently exposed to pressures in excess of DSS levels are:



• Proposed works by Council to upgrade the South Maclean Pump Station in 2014/15 will only increase pressures in the Logan South network and exacerbate maximum pressure related issues.

• Following pressure management the statistics are:



• The proposed Tall Timber PMAs and associated infrastructure can accommodate both the planned development and a potential shift in service standards from constant flow to on-demand

• The cost for implementing the proposed pressure management in the Logan South water supply area is $990,000 ($2014)

• Potential savings from reduced background leakage is approximately $230,000/year if pressure management is implemented

• The average payback period for implementing the works is 4 years.




8. RECOMMENDATIONS The Logan Water Alliance recommends that Council:

1. Adopt the proposed pressure management requirements into the Capital Works program for 2015/16

as priority infrastructure at a cost of $990,000.

2. Undertake the detailed design for the proposed infrastructure.

3. Consider delivery in 2014/15 to mitigate the potential infrastructure risks from further pressure

increases as a result of the South Maclean pump station upgrades.

90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Page 49 of 62 Rev: B



9. REFERENCES

Logan Water Alliance 2013, Logan East Water Supply DMA Management & Fire Flow Augmentations Detailed Planning (Task No.90-11-92).

Logan Water Alliance 2013, Logan South Flow Monitoring, Project Development & Detailed Planning (Task No.90-12-05).

ILMSS Ltd 2011, Leakage and Pressure Management Evaluation &Targeting Software LAPMET. Distributed by Water Services Association Australia.

Logan Water Alliance 2014, Master Planning Review - Review of Desired Standards of Service (Task 90-12-43)

90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Page 50 of 62 Rev: B



Appendix A Figures

90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



Appendix B Desired Standards of Service

90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



WATER NETWORK DSS

Parameter Criteria

Water demand

Average Day Demand (ADD)

On demand areas - 190 L/EP/d. Based on 165 L/EP/d residential consumption + allowance for leakage/losses (25 L/EP/d).

Constant flow areas - 150 L/EP/d. Based on 120 L/EP/d residential consumption + allowance for leakage/losses (30L/EP/d).

Peaking factors Category MDMM/AD MD/AD PH/AD

Guidance Note: Peaking factors are to be applied to the residential component of demand, i.e. 165 & 120 L/EP/d. Leakage /loss levels will remain constant throughout all demand categories and should only be appended after any peaking escalation has occurred.

Residential detached 1.3 1.7 3.1

Residential attached 1.3 1.6 2.6

Rural residential 1.3 1.7 CF services 70L/hr/property

Commercial 1.2 1.3 2.0

Industry 1.2 1.3 1.7

Parks / Open space 1.2 1.3 1.7

System planning

Bulk supply and reticulation

3 days of MDMM. Reservoirs to have a net positive inflow and capable of continuous operation and not fall below the emergency level. 3 days of MD. Reservoirs should not fall below the emergency level. 5 days of AD. Reservoirs should fill from empty to full.

Service pressures

Minimum operating pressure at PH

On demand areas – 22m at the property boundary based on reservoir at minimum operating level (MOL). MOL defined as 15% of storage height or top of emergency storage.

Constant flow areas – 10m at the property boundary based on reservoir at minimum operating level (MOL) MOL defined as 15% of storage height or top of emergency storage.

Maximum operating pressure 80 m at the property boundary based on the reservoir at TWL

Target maximum operating pressure 55 m at the property boundary based on the reservoir level at TWL

Fire fighting

System pressure On demand areas 12 m minimum at property boundary


Fire flow


Rural Residential 7.5 L/s for 2 hrs

Rural Commercial / Industrial 15 L/s for 2 hrs

Residential 15 L/s for 2 hrs

Commercial & Industrial 30 L/s for 4 hrs

Special risk / hazard to be advised by Logan City Council (LCC)

Background demand 2/3 PH (as per DEWS requirements)

Reservoir level Minimum Operating Level (MOL)

Water quality

Drinking water quality Drinking water to comply with the NHMRC Australian Drinking Water Guidelines

90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1



Reservoir storage

Ground level storage capacity

3 (MD - MDMM) + (Greater of emergency storage/fire fighting reserve) Emergency Storage = 4 hr MDMM demand in zone or 0.5 ML whichever is greater. Fire Fighting reserve = > 4800EP:

• rural residential 108 kL • industry 540 kL • otherwise 216 kL

< 4800 EP: • rural residential 54 kL • industry 432 kL • otherwise 108 kL

Elevated storage capacity Guidance Note: In-line pressure booster pumping without high-level storage shall be considered where satisfactory pressures can be provided by gravity flow during low demand periods or booster failure can be mitigated to an acceptable level (risk assessment required) and where there is no other feasible means of providing adequate pressure.

6 (PH - 1/12 MDMM) + minimum fire fighting reserve. Fire Fighting reserve = > 4800EP:

• rural residential 108 kL • industry 540 kL • otherwise 216 kL

< 4800 EP: • rural residential 54 kL • industry 432 kL • otherwise 108 kL

Pumping capacity

Pump supplying a ground level reservoir MDMM over 20 hrs

Pump supplying an elevated reservoir (6PH – operating volume) / (6 x 3600)

Standby pump capacity To match duty, except where more than one duty pump or as determined by risk assessment.

Reticulation booster pumps/pumped system PH + fire flow

Pipeline assessment & design

Main capacity

Raw water mains & trunk feeding ground level reservoir : MDMM for a gravity supply and MDMM over 20hrs for a pumped supply Trunk Mains feeding elevated reservoir: capacity of pumps: Reticulation Mains: PH + fire flow.

Mains size Guidance Note: New CF areas are not permitted by LCC.

Constant flow areas - where mains terminate in short runs such as cu- de-sacs minimum sizes that may be acceptable are: DN 63 up to 150 m from main DN 80 up to 350 m from main On demand areas - minimum reticulation main 100mm in residential areas and 150mm in commercial and industrial areas.

Friction default value

Existing Infrastructure Future Infrastructure

Colebrook White k values (mm)

The design shall be conducted to achieve less than the following head losses: (a) 5 m head/km for ≤DN 150 (CIOD) or ≤DN 180 (ISO). (b) 3 m head/km for ≥DN 200 (CIOD) or ≥DN 250 (ISO). Head loss shall be calculated using computer models or hydraulic formulas.

Maximum velocity 2.5 m/s At peak hour for trunk mains and at peak hour including fire flow for reticulation.

< 10 10 to 25 > 25 Asbestos Cement 0.15 0.3 0.3Plastic (UPVC, MDPE, Hobas, etc)

0.06 0.06 0.15

MSCL/DICL 0.3 0.3 0.6CICL 0.3 0.3 0.6

Pipeline Age (years)Pipe Material

90-12-76 Date issued: 05/12/2014 Rev: 1

Documents

LOGAN WATER ALLIANCE LOGAN SOUTH WATER … · Logan South Water Supply Pressure Management - Detailed ... implemented and the average payback period for ... Logan South Water Supply