the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Feb 2021
Hydraulic performance Analysis of water supply distribution network using water GEM v8i
Abstract. The study evaluates the hydraulic analysis of water supply distribution network using water GEMS v8i. which used for modeling and Simulation of hydraulic parameters in the distribution networks. The hydraulic parameters which analyzed by using this software were junction pressure, velocity of water in networking system, and nodal demands and the overall result of water supply did not satisfied demand. The water distribution system has been analyzed for steady state and extended period simulation for the present population scenario for intermittent water supply using water Gems v8i. About 14 percent of the total number of nodes analyzed had negative pressures while 68 percent of the nodes had pressures less than the adopted pressure for the analysis. These negative pressures indicate that there is inadequate head within the distribution network for water conveyance to all the sections. In the same manner 85.6 percent of flow velocities in the pipes were within the adopted velocity while around 14.4 percent of the velocities exceeded the adopted velocity. The results in this study revealed that the performance of the water distribution system of under current demand is inefficient.
- Preprint
(785 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(847 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on dwes-2020-34', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Mar 2021
The manuscript is motivated by the important need to quantify supply deficiencies in the future. However, I don´t believe the manuscript has sufficient novelty for publication in dwes. The writing rquires significant improvements (the English language, inconsistent formatting, the bibliography, quality of the figures). The research questions are also trivially motivated since how to do such modelling of a distribiution network analyse it by direct application of (proprietary) hydraulic analysis software is standard knowldge.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2020-34-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dessalegn Geleta, 25 Mar 2021
As per described and discussed line number 177 up to 192-line number in the manuscript the quantity of water supply deficiency and water supply production estimated for 2020 to 2035 years under indicated lines. For instance, in line -189 the average daily demands of the study area for 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035 years is increased by 8.99 %, 50.97 %, 94.23 % and 147.41 % respectively and in line-192 maximum daily demand is increasing by 10.4%, 26.94%, 94.20% and 142.2% where as in line -192 also estimated the peak hour demand 7.33%, 65.90%, 98.73% and 143.02%, for these consequent years respectively. Not only this, in Figure 5 (line 195 -201) it also well described and discussed this maximum daily water demand and peak hourly water demand for the study area.
In the same manner; what you comment on quantification of water supply deficiencies: -
This comment is well done and explained in this manuscript starting line 204 to 210 numbers the quantity of water supply production in cubic metrics and the quantity of water demand or water deficit is deeply justified. Especial this water supply production and water supply deficit is expressed graphically by comparing for each consequent year of excess surplus and deficit of water demand up 2035 years. Additional as indicated in figure 6 this water supply deficit is recorded started from 2020 years and increased smoothly up 2035 years. From this figure 6, water supply production is constant 18655.2 meter cubic throughout the time, whereas the water supply deficit is varying time to time and it beyond to water supply production starting from 2020 ,2025,2030 2035 years which becoming increased by 22433.8; 31335.8; 40208.8 and 49329.7 meter cubic of water supply deficit respectively. In fact, any target of the research paper is to solve the existing problem and recommending to the concerned issues to overcame the temptation by supporting technology and the fact challenging the society. The main target of figure and tables we used in document is to express the required issue easily, so in this paper both of figure and tables is able expressed this message and any of it unreadable or invisible parts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2020-34-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dessalegn Geleta, 25 Mar 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on dwes-2020-34', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Apr 2021
The manuscript addresses important issues, namely intermittent water supply and the difficulty in responding to increasing water demand. The key message of the paper seems to be the importance of managing water supply systems to guarantee that water supply meets water demand requirements. However, it is difficult to know how the obtained results and the used methods are linked with the paper objectives. In more detail, it is difficult to understand what are the research hypotheses and the gap in knowledge, as well as the originality of the used methods, with the shortcoming of having results poorly discussed (meaning: result interpretation and comparison with other publications).
As result, I would kindly advise the authors to get the ideas of the paper written in a clearer way and to describe more precisely “what was done” and “why it was done”, for readers to better understand the paper core messages.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2020-34-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Dessalegn Geleta, 18 Apr 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://dwes.copernicus.org/preprints/dwes-2020-34/dwes-2020-34-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Dessalegn Geleta, 18 Apr 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on dwes-2020-34', Anonymous Referee #3, 19 Apr 2021
The paper presents a case study of a town in Ethiopia where the distribution network is modelled using well known software, WaterGEMS. My findings are:
- By the contents, the paper is more of a practitioner's paper rather than a scientific paper. The methodology is very basic and includes the pressure and velocity analysis without going much into the discussion of the results. As such, it does not add anything new about the modelling procedure than it is known for already a few decades.
- Interesting aspect is that it is a real case network with field data collection, which gives opportunity to put results of the simulation into a context of real problems. But then, I would for instance like to see the calibration results, learn whether there is a degree of intermittency in supply, which would in my assumption be the case, and how is this then handled in the model, are the roof tanks used, how the demand patterns look like, how about the leakages, etc. The papers is simply lacking some relevant details on the modelling process that could give me better idea while assessing the results. What is shown is just too basic.
- The structure of the paper is superficial and contains stories that are not so important for the modelling process, while it is lacking those that are important. The English is pretty substandard and needs significant improvements.
In summary, looking to the submission as a scientific paper, I see a very long road to make it approved and I am not convinced that this is the path to go; this is why I rejected it. In case the authors are willing to resubmit it, better chance is to profile it as a practitioner’s paper; still, in that case a major revision is inevitable.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2020-34-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Dessalegn Geleta, 15 May 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://dwes.copernicus.org/preprints/dwes-2020-34/dwes-2020-34-AC3-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on dwes-2020-34', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Mar 2021
The manuscript is motivated by the important need to quantify supply deficiencies in the future. However, I don´t believe the manuscript has sufficient novelty for publication in dwes. The writing rquires significant improvements (the English language, inconsistent formatting, the bibliography, quality of the figures). The research questions are also trivially motivated since how to do such modelling of a distribiution network analyse it by direct application of (proprietary) hydraulic analysis software is standard knowldge.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2020-34-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dessalegn Geleta, 25 Mar 2021
As per described and discussed line number 177 up to 192-line number in the manuscript the quantity of water supply deficiency and water supply production estimated for 2020 to 2035 years under indicated lines. For instance, in line -189 the average daily demands of the study area for 2020, 2025, 2030 and 2035 years is increased by 8.99 %, 50.97 %, 94.23 % and 147.41 % respectively and in line-192 maximum daily demand is increasing by 10.4%, 26.94%, 94.20% and 142.2% where as in line -192 also estimated the peak hour demand 7.33%, 65.90%, 98.73% and 143.02%, for these consequent years respectively. Not only this, in Figure 5 (line 195 -201) it also well described and discussed this maximum daily water demand and peak hourly water demand for the study area.
In the same manner; what you comment on quantification of water supply deficiencies: -
This comment is well done and explained in this manuscript starting line 204 to 210 numbers the quantity of water supply production in cubic metrics and the quantity of water demand or water deficit is deeply justified. Especial this water supply production and water supply deficit is expressed graphically by comparing for each consequent year of excess surplus and deficit of water demand up 2035 years. Additional as indicated in figure 6 this water supply deficit is recorded started from 2020 years and increased smoothly up 2035 years. From this figure 6, water supply production is constant 18655.2 meter cubic throughout the time, whereas the water supply deficit is varying time to time and it beyond to water supply production starting from 2020 ,2025,2030 2035 years which becoming increased by 22433.8; 31335.8; 40208.8 and 49329.7 meter cubic of water supply deficit respectively. In fact, any target of the research paper is to solve the existing problem and recommending to the concerned issues to overcame the temptation by supporting technology and the fact challenging the society. The main target of figure and tables we used in document is to express the required issue easily, so in this paper both of figure and tables is able expressed this message and any of it unreadable or invisible parts.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2020-34-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dessalegn Geleta, 25 Mar 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on dwes-2020-34', Anonymous Referee #2, 11 Apr 2021
The manuscript addresses important issues, namely intermittent water supply and the difficulty in responding to increasing water demand. The key message of the paper seems to be the importance of managing water supply systems to guarantee that water supply meets water demand requirements. However, it is difficult to know how the obtained results and the used methods are linked with the paper objectives. In more detail, it is difficult to understand what are the research hypotheses and the gap in knowledge, as well as the originality of the used methods, with the shortcoming of having results poorly discussed (meaning: result interpretation and comparison with other publications).
As result, I would kindly advise the authors to get the ideas of the paper written in a clearer way and to describe more precisely “what was done” and “why it was done”, for readers to better understand the paper core messages.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2020-34-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Dessalegn Geleta, 18 Apr 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://dwes.copernicus.org/preprints/dwes-2020-34/dwes-2020-34-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Dessalegn Geleta, 18 Apr 2021
-
RC3: 'Comment on dwes-2020-34', Anonymous Referee #3, 19 Apr 2021
The paper presents a case study of a town in Ethiopia where the distribution network is modelled using well known software, WaterGEMS. My findings are:
- By the contents, the paper is more of a practitioner's paper rather than a scientific paper. The methodology is very basic and includes the pressure and velocity analysis without going much into the discussion of the results. As such, it does not add anything new about the modelling procedure than it is known for already a few decades.
- Interesting aspect is that it is a real case network with field data collection, which gives opportunity to put results of the simulation into a context of real problems. But then, I would for instance like to see the calibration results, learn whether there is a degree of intermittency in supply, which would in my assumption be the case, and how is this then handled in the model, are the roof tanks used, how the demand patterns look like, how about the leakages, etc. The papers is simply lacking some relevant details on the modelling process that could give me better idea while assessing the results. What is shown is just too basic.
- The structure of the paper is superficial and contains stories that are not so important for the modelling process, while it is lacking those that are important. The English is pretty substandard and needs significant improvements.
In summary, looking to the submission as a scientific paper, I see a very long road to make it approved and I am not convinced that this is the path to go; this is why I rejected it. In case the authors are willing to resubmit it, better chance is to profile it as a practitioner’s paper; still, in that case a major revision is inevitable.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/dwes-2020-34-RC3 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Dessalegn Geleta, 15 May 2021
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://dwes.copernicus.org/preprints/dwes-2020-34/dwes-2020-34-AC3-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 813 | 560 | 66 | 1,439 | 136 | 62 | 61 |
- HTML: 813
- PDF: 560
- XML: 66
- Total: 1,439
- Supplement: 136
- BibTeX: 62
- EndNote: 61
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
