| Description |
This thesis presents the application of a comprehensive approach to compare the impact of decentralized storage versus centralized storage in a municipal water distribution network. The study considered a water distribution network at Mehran University of Engineering and Technology (MUET) in Jamshoro, Pakistan and investigated two alternative designs - one with one centralized storage container and the second one with storage provided at each demand node. The question of centralized or decentralized storage is one facing a large fraction of water systems in the world, and in particular in smaller communities in developing nations. This study considered the tradeoffs of cost, energy requirement, life-cycle energy requirement, and resilience to identify the storage solution that is preferred in the case study application. The two configurations were designed for the MUET water supply system using design standards representative of the State of Utah in the United States. Cost of each network configuration was estimated based on the Punjab Market Rates System, 2013. The resulting network components were quantified to estimate the life-cycle energy requirement. A hydraulic model of the water distribution network under both configurations was created using the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) EPANET software. Simulations of the network performance were used to calculate energy intensity throughout the network under normal operation and the system resilience using Jayaram's resilience under different disturbance scenarios. The cost analysis indicates the capital cost is 15% higher for the centralized storage option, but in iv the 8th year of operation, the accumulated net present value of capital and operational costs for pumping of the decentralized storage option exceeds the cost of the centralized storage option. Consistent with the cost analysis, the energy intensity is three times higher in the decentralized option than the centralized one. Due to aging effect, the decentralized option experiences a reduction of 70% of initial resilience over 30 years, whereas the centralized system loses about 25%. The synthesis of the results indicates the centralized storage option is more broadly appropriate for this case than the decentralized storage option. |
