Assignment Brief – Part 1
|Unit||CVEN6005 – Advanced Hydraulics & Hydrology|
|Assignment Weight||25% of unit|
|Issue Date||w/c 27th February 2023|
|Due Dates||23:59, 22nd April 2023 (Part 1A) 23:59, 6th May 2023 (Part 1B)|
|Group Size||Maximum 2 students per group Students completing individually should only attempt Tasks 1‐3 and 6‐7|
As part of the ongoing development of a large regional town, a drinking water network needs to be analysed and expanded (Part A). In addition, the stormwater design and subsequent flood risk needs to be established (Part B).
There are two submission events for this assignment:
Part A Submission Requirements:
- A brief report (max page count = 6 pages) as a single PDF file – submitted to turnitin
- Your EPAnet model (.net) file – uploaded to the Bb submission page
Part B Submission Requirements:
- A brief report (max page count = 12 pages) as a single PDF file
For both reports, the file should have standard (25.4mm) margins, minimum font size 11. The maximum page count includes any appendices, contents page and/or cover page, but excludes references. Scanned hand calculations, where deemed appropriate, should be neat and clear, and properly signposted (defining variables, equations and solutions where needed). Diagrams must be numbered, clearly captioned and appropriately referenced in text. Written text should be accurate and succinct, with minimal ambiguity or inaccuracy.
Failing to meet the submission requirements detailed above will result in a lower mark being awarded than that suggested by the rubrics given in the assignment.
Late Submission Penalty:
Late submissions will be have 5% removed if submitted from 1 minute to 24 hours after the deadline. Beyond this, an additional 10% is removed per additional day the assignment is overdue. An assessment more than seven (7) calendar days overdue will not be marked and will receive 0%.
This submission assesses the following unit learning outcomes:
- Design and evaluate the hydrologic principles associated with water resources engineering
- Analyse, appraise and design water distribution networks using a variety of industry appropriate methods
Assessment criteria and marking distribution and Engineers Australia competencies addressed The total assessment mark awarded is made up of the marks awarded to each element within the assignment brief. Weightings and marks are given for each section.
Each item of the assessment aligns with certain EA competencies to be demonstrated. Other competencies may be demonstrated by completion of the task in addition to those noted.
|Item||Engineers Australia competencies 1 and (if appropriate) Level of Learning 2||Excellent standard (meets all expectations set out below)||< Competency range > Highest Lowest||Unsatisfactory standard (fails to meet minimum expected)|
|Part A – Water Delivery||Conceptual UnderstandingSpecialist KnowledgeProblem Solving Use of Techniques Communication Creativity||Accurate and appropriate analysis Well written and clearly communicated results Design and discussion offering optimised suggestions and clear evaluation of ideas||Inaccurate analysis Poorly written, with unclear communication and badly presented results Design proposals not evaluated or considered against the scenario|
|Part B – Stormwa ter Manage ment||Conceptual UnderstandingSpecialist KnowledgeProblem Solving Use of Techniques Systematic Use Communication Creativity||Accurate and appropriate analysis Well written and clearly communicated results Design and discussion offering optimised suggestions and clear evaluation of ideas||Inaccurate analysis Poorly written, with unclear communication and badly presented results Design proposals not evaluated or considered against the scenario|
Part A (35% of Assignment, Due 22nd April)
An urban area, shown in Figure 1, has some of a water network already built. The condition of the PE pipes can be assumed to be very good, and the steel pipes are known to have a roughness of 0.1mm.
The network is fed by a gravity main 10km to a tank (Tank 1), from which the water is pumped into the network by a variable speed pump (Pump 1). The reservoir has a water age of 8 hours. Due to the complexities of modelling a variable speed pump in EPAnet, the approach taken should be to characterise the pump by a single point pump curve of (150Ls‐1, 30m), followed by a pressure reducing valve with a maximum pressure of 35m. The tank has a reduced level of 8m, with a 2m maximum depth and a 22m diameter.
Figure 1 ‐ Existing Water Supply Network
The network demands are shown in Table 1. The flows are split into domestic and industrial flows, where domestic values (𝑄d) given are averages of the daily demand, and industrial values (𝑄i) are peak flow requirements. All nodes shown in Table 1 have a reduced level of 10m.
Table 1 ‐ Network Node Demands (L/s)
The network will need to be expanded by including the following large demand nodes. The new nodes will have a demand depending on your student numbers, as shown in Table 2 – New Network Node Demands (L/s)Table 2. You should ignore the greyed out nodes for your student numbers combination.
|Sum of the last digit from each student ID number1|
|Node||Reduced Level||Node Demand||0 — 7||8 — 12||13 — 18|
Table 2 – New Network Node Demands (L/s)
- Using the EPANET model (available on Bb), identify the issues with the current network, given the expected service provisions are:
- Minimum pressure head of 13m at the nodes (for all times)
- Maximum pressure head of 35m at the nodes (for all times)
- Maximum water age at the nodes of 30hrs
Although the parameters of the network are correct (pipe, nodal values, etc.), the model settings may need to be adjusted to obtain an accurate model output.
- Develop the network to include the required nodes in Table 2 and to overcome any of the issues found in Task 1. You should aim to minimise alterations to the current network but can replace or remove pipes if needed.
No additional source is available, but other tanks can be added to the network if deemed appropriate. You cannot change the pump / pressure reducing valve settings, but may install additional pump(s) using the same combination.
- The client is worried about the possibility that Tank 1 may be contaminated with some toxin. Model the water toxicity (for your finished network in Task 2) at the nodes, if the tank contains 100mg/L of toxin. You may assume that the source is not contaminated, nor is there any initial toxin in the pipe network. Guidelines prohibit a level above 0.2mg/L in the water supply.
The EPANET (.NET) file for Task3 must be uploaded as part of your submission.
It is vital that you use the same node labels as in Figure 1. The accuracy of your report depends on the values provided against nodes being labelled the same as nodes in the figure.
If working as an individual, sum the last 2 digits of the ID number.
|Task 1 (7%)||Task 2 (16%)||Task 3 (12%)|
|HD (>80%)||EPAnet model is correctly and efficiently set‐up, calibrated and the results are presented clearly. Issues with the current service levels are shown for all the network using an accurate, steady‐state model.||Proposal of an excellent design that meets the requirements and maintains the network service levels presented in a cost effective manner. Design is fully analysed across a steady state time period, using a completely accurate, reliable model. Discussion of how the design solves the identified problem(s) and clear evidence of other rejected design ideas.||The full extent of the toxin is modelled through the water network using an accurate, steady state model. The time of the contamination is explored to find a worst‐case occurrence. All instances of nodes being above guidelines are identified, and discussion offers additional insight to the modelling method and issues.|
|D (70%‐ 79%)||EPAnet model is correctly set‐up and the results are presented clearly. Issues with the current service levels are shown for all the network using a mostly accurate, steady‐state model.||Proposal of a good design that meets most of the requirements across the time period. Design is fully analysed across a steady state time period, using a mostly accurate, reliable model. Discussion identifies the advantages and disadvantages.||The full extent of the toxin is modelled through the water network using an accurate, steady state model. Most instances of nodes being above guidelines are identified. Discussion offers additional insight to the model.|
|C (60%‐ 69%)||EPAnet model is correctly set‐up and the results are presented clearly. Most of the issues with the current service levels are shown for the network.||Proposed design meets the requirements (though perhaps very inefficiently), with a brief evaluative discussion and a mostly accurate, reliable model.||The full extent of the toxin is modelled through the water network using a mostly accurate model. Most instances of nodes being above guidelines are identified.|
|P (50%‐ 59%)||EPAnet model has been run over a time period that highlights some of the network issues.||Proposal suggests a design that should feasibly meet requirements, though the model may lack accuracy in places.||Model offers some insight and at least some of the above guideline levels are identified.|
|Fail (<50%)||EPAnet model is not run in a manner to provide meaningful output.||Designs do not meet requirements, and/or model accuracy is inadequate.||Toxin is not accurately modelled through the network or output is unclear.|
Get expert help for Advanced Hydraulics & Hydrology and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!