Muramba Phase I-2
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Muramba Phase I-2 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 7,084
- Pages: 32
EWB PROJECT: MURAMBA, RWANDA PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Prepared by: ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS M1074 ENGINEERING CENTERS BUILDING 1550 Engineering Drive MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706-1609
Fall 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................... 4 1.1 Site Assessment ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Contacts..................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Budget and Funding.................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Engineering Components Considered....................................................................... 4 2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT........................... 4 2.1 Professional/Student Chapters Involved ................................................................... 4 2.2 Assigning of Components......................................................................................... 5 3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................ 6 3.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion .............................................................................. 7 3.2 Implementation Process ............................................................................................ 8 3.2.1 Water Quality................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 11 3.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 12 3.4.1 Water Collection .............................................................................................. 12 3.4.2 Water Conservation and Remediation ............................................................. 13 4.0 RIVER CROSSING.................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 14 4.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 15 4.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 16 4.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 16 5.0 LANDSLIDE .............................................................................................................. 17 5.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 17 5.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 17 6.0 PLUMBING................................................................................................................ 18 6.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 18 6.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 18 6.2.1 Repairing and Replacing Leaky Fixtures......................................................... 18 6.2.2 Implementing a New “Flushing” System for Toilets....................................... 18 6.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 18 6.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 19 7.0 SECOND SOURCE.................................................................................................... 19 7.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 19 7.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 19 7.2.1 Survey Description........................................................................................... 20 7.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 23 7.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 23 8.0 SUB-PROJECTS ........................................................................................................ 23 8.1 Sand Filter............................................................................................................... 23 8.2 Water Tower Stand Pipe ......................................................................................... 23 8.3 Pipeline Troubleshooting ........................................................................................ 24 9.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................... 24 9.1 Travel, Lodging, and Project Contacts ................................................................... 24 9.2 Summary of Component Implementation............................................................... 24
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 2 of 32
Fall 2004
9.3 Final Budget............................................................................................................ 24 9.4 Lessons Learned and Future Evaluations ............................................................... 24 10.0 References................................................................................................................. 24 11.0 Appendix................................................................................................................... 25 11.1 Contacts................................................................................................................. 25 11.2 Flow Rates ............................................................................................................ 26 11.3 Cross Section Schematic....................................................................................... 31 11.4 Water Infrastructure Schematic ............................................................................ 32
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 3 of 32
Fall 2004
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION From July 15-31, 2004, a group of eight students, one professor, and one medical doctor traveled to Muramba to for the Phase I Implementation trip. UW-Madison Professor Peter Bosscher went on the July trip, as well as the March 2004 site assessment. Goals for the July trip were gathered from the Site Assessment Report, Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report (www.ewb-usa.org) and from Bosscher’s expertise. Six projects were selected to complete in July 2004. They are described in sections 2.0-7.0. However, when the group arrived to Muramba, more projects were added to the workload (section 8.0). Another EWB group plans to visit Muramba in January 2005, to install a rainwater catchment scheme to increase water quantity. 1.1 Site Assessment Please see the March 2004 Survey Trip at www.ewb-usa.org 1.2 Contacts Contacts specific to the July 2004 trip are in Appendix 11.1 Additional contacts are in Appendix 8.3 Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report. 1.3 Budget and Funding The Phase I Implementation was paid for through a grant obtained primarily by Peter Bosscher. 1.4 Engineering Components Considered The Phase I Implementation team tried to increase quantity and quality of the existing source (Source Improvement 3.0). Teams were formed to repair the River Crossing (4.0), Landslide (5.0), and Plumbing (6.0). A second source of water was surveyed (7.0). Furthermore, once in Muramba, many other problems with the water system including pope clogs (8.3) and conservation issues (3.4.2) unfolded and were addressed.
2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT 2.1 Professional/Student Chapters Involved UW-Madison Students comprised the July 2004 trip. CU-Boulder and UW-Madison are partnering chapters for the Muramba, Rwanda project. No professional chapters were involved in the Phase I Implementation.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 4 of 32
Fall 2004
2.2 Assigning of Components Leaders were assigned to each of the projects based on desire and skill set. For further information regarding the projects, the following people should be contacted: Project 3.0 Source Improvement 4.0 River Crossing 5.0 Landslide 6.0 Plumbing 7.0 Second Source 8.0 Sub-Projects
Contact(s) Tim Miller [email protected] Audrey Miller [email protected] Andrew Lockman [email protected] Perry Cabot [email protected] Amelia Cosgrove [email protected] Evan Parks [email protected] Matt Bretl [email protected] Peter Bosscher [email protected]
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 5 of 32
Fall 2004
3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT To plan for source improvement, the UW Madison group gathered information from the March 2004 site assessment report Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report, Pete Bosscher, and Andrea Khosropour. The site assessment report, which can be found at http://www.ewb-usa.org/ explained the “current water supply is being gathered from six surface water locations into collection boxes.” The quantity and quality of the water was insufficient to provide water for 1,200 people. Proceeding under the assumption that all the water collected was surface water, the team planned to improve the water quality with a spring box, dam, or wellpoint. However, when the team arrived, it was found that only one of the collections sites gathered surface water. When walking to the second source, one comes upon 4 collection boxes. Further up the hill, there is a 1.25” PVC pipe collecting surface water. Innocent, the water system maintenance and repairman explained the water flowing into the four collection boxes are from an underground source. The only surface water collection observed was the 1.25” PVC pipe sitting in a stream (Images 1 and 2). Images 1 and 2 show the only known source of contamination in the water system.
Image 1: Surface water collection
Image 2: 1.25” PVC pipe collecting surface water
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 6 of 32
Fall 2004
3.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion 3.1.1 Quantity Innocent gathered a team of workers to tap a new water source. The new source increased the quantity by 3.7 Liters per minute, or 5296 Liters per day. All Flow Rates in Appendix 11.2 Flow Rates. 3.1.2 Quality To address the water quality problem, the team cut off the surface water supply collection as pictured in Images 1 and 2. However, Louis, a maintenance repairman and Innocent’s protégé, later reconnected the source because the college was not receiving enough water. For this reason, another trip is necessary in January 2005. The existing water system cannot supply a sufficient amount of clean water to the 1,200 users.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 7 of 32
Fall 2004
3.2 Implementation Process Innocent was the driving force behind tapping the new source. With the available resources, he is capable of tapping sources and maintaining the system. The EWB team serves as a catalyst and resource pool to tap an additional source. Innocent showed the EWB team a place where he believed a seep could be tapped. Using pictures, the process is explained. A team of Rwandan workers were selected by Innocent and John Bosco. The men carried supplies to the source and used picks to dig the site where Innocent believed a seep would be found. The med dug until they hit bedrock. Innocent excavated the surface with a wire brush until he found the seep.
The water collected from the seep would need to travel about 9 feet in galvanized steel piping brought from the United States across a small drainage. Then the water would flow underground in PVC pipes and join with the College main source. Image 5 shows men digging a trench to lay the PVC pipe.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 8 of 32
Fall 2004
A wellpoint brought by the EWB team from the US was placed on the bedrock where the seep was flowing. The pipe extending out of the page (Image 6) is the galvanized steel piping.
The water flow from the seep was directed to the wellpoint using clay to form a funnel. Stones were placed to surround the wellpoint (Image 7) to help keep small particles from clogging the porous fiberglass surface of the wellpoint. Plastic was placed over the stones to keep out small particles and the wellpoint was enclosed with clay. Soil and rocks were piled on top of the wellpoint structure.
Image 9 shows the creek crossing. A mortar and stone wall was later built around the pipe to prevent animals from kicking the pipe. The top of the picture is the source and the bottom is the other side of the drainage. The water then flows into a PVC pipe which is joined with the college pipeline.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 9 of 32
Fall 2004
3.2.1 Water Quality To physically address the water quality issues, we devised and constructed a filtration device to be placed in the collection box nearest to the Parish (called CM2 in Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report ). We choose this collection box because it was the last point of entry for inflow and potential contaminants before the water flowed to the Parish water tower. The filtration device filters out grass, large sediment, and other particulates, which reduces the probability of potential clogs in the pipeline that are not easily remedied. Additionally, the filter screens large particles and sediment that contribute to the turbidity and overall uncleanliness of the water and improves the aesthetic appeal of the water. A well-point and a series of couplings comprised the filtration device, pictured below before and after installation.
As water flows through the well point, sediment will accumulate in the screen enshrouding the point. To ensure that the filtration device functions properly over time, the screens on the well point must be cleaned periodically to guarantee that there is sufficient water flow to the users. Such maintenance may necessitate a schedule that village technicians can follow regularly. If the well-point screen becomes clogged, causing the filter to not function properly, the flow of water could decrease or even stop completely, causing even greater water quantity shortfalls. Additionally, the sediment that accumulates in the collection box should be removed periodically as well. After placing the filtration device in the collection box and securing it to the outflow pipe, we observed that the water level in the collection box did not change. This indicated that the inflow and outflow rates remained constant after the implementation of the well point. As the screen becomes clogged with sediment, the inflow rate will exceed the outflow rate and the water level in the collection box will rise.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 10 of 32
Fall 2004
3.3 Materials and Budget Materials for the Source Improvement Item Hose/Pipe Adaptor, brass 3/4f x 3/4m x 1/2f Pipe, galvanized 1-1/4" x 48" Check Valve, Brass, 1-1/4" Sprayer Pipe Reducer Coupling, Poly 1-1/2" x 1" Sprayer Hose Barb, 1-1/2" Reducer Bushing, 1 x 3/4 Hose Barb, 1-1/2" Thread x 1-1/2" Shank Nipple, Galvanized, 1-1/4 x 3 Cistern Pump, #3 Steel Post Driver w/ Handle Sprayer Pipe Reducer Coupling, Poly 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" Check Valve, In-Line, 1-1/4" x 1-1/2" Flex Coupling, PVC, 1-1/4" x 1-1/4" Flex Coupling, PVC, 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" Drive Coupling, 1-1/4" Drive Cap Pipe Joint Compound w/ Teflon, 4 oz. Fertilizer Solution Hose, 1-1/2" x 1" Well Point, Fiberglass 60 Gauze, 1-1/4" Hose Barb, 1-1/4" Thread x 1-1/2" Shank 500 Ft Reload Twisted Gold Line Reel Refill 100 Ct. 21" Glo Orange Marking Flags
Units 2 4 2
Unit Cost 1.89 11.99 14.99
Cost Vendor 3.78 Farm & Fleet 47.96 Farm & Fleet 29.98 Farm & Fleet
2 2 2 2 2 1 1
4.29 1.59 1.49 3.59 1.29 55.99 12.99
8.58 3.18 2.98 7.18 2.58 55.99 12.99
Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet
3 1 2 2 4 2 1 4 2 2 1 1
4.29 8.79 1.85 1.85 7.29 6.99 2.99 1.39 39.99 1.59 6.99 6.99 Total
12.87 8.79 3.7 3.7 29.16 13.98 2.99 5.56 79.98 3.18 6.99 6.99 353.09
Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet
Note Not all materials listed were used for the source improvement project. Some supplies were purchased in Kigali, including PVC piping and assorted couplings. All remaining supplies were left in Muramba for future use.
Inventory of Remaining Supplies Item Hand pump PVC pipe PVC pipe coupler Hose barb Drive cap
Description #3 Pitcher pump with lever 63 mm dia. 63 mm dia. 1.25”-1.50” 1.25”
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Quantity 1 ~ 10 ft. 1 1 1
Page 11 of 32
Fall 2004
Fernco coupler Galvanized iron coupler Copper check valve Caulk gun Nipples Reducer coupling Reducer coupling PVC coupling Female hose adaptor Reducer coupling Ball valve Male PVC coupling Non-collapsing hose Hose barb Hose barb Fence post driver Marker flags
1.25”-1.25” 3” 1.25” 1.25” 1.50”-1.00” 1.50”-1.25” 1.25”-1.00” 0.75”-0.75” 1.00”-0.75” 2” 2” Reinforced, 1.5” 1.50”-1.25”, 90° 1.25”-2.00” Weighted
1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 ~5 ft. 1 1 1 100
3.4 Recommendations 3.4.1 Water Collection An assessment of Muramba’s water resource availability reveals that the current water resources are still inadequate to meet the consumption needs of Muramba College and the surrounding schools. Despite tapping into an additional source that provided an additional flow, the community continues to suffer from a lack of potable water. Addressing this issue will require tapping into additional groundwater sources while conserving the water resources now being consumed. A comprehensive water budget would provide a reasonable estimate of how much water the community uses. Some factors to consider may include the water usage of the College girls, the water usage for cooking, and seasonal consumption cycles. As mentioned in Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report, a number of alternatives may supplement the current supply. However, not all of the alternatives are feasible. One possible solution mentioned previously was to increase the diameter of pipe at the sources that feed the collection boxes. A larger cross-sectional area of pipe would enable more water to flow into the system. It is not feasible to expand the diameter of the buried pipes because excavating the collection points would disrupt a stable agriculture above these points and the gain would be minimal. With the assistance of local experts, we discovered that all water collection points are underground except for one surface water source. The only surface water source could be damned to maximize collection. However, it was evident from the large pools of standing water, which were infested with insects, that this source may be the sole contaminator of the entire system and may contribute to the sickness experienced by much of the community.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 12 of 32
Fall 2004
Tapping into additional groundwater sources may prove to be a reasonable solution. Community members are skilled at locating and excavating seepage points that would provide clean, uncontaminated water. Water collected from these sources could be piped into existing lines, thereby increasing the overall flow into the system. A possible drawback to this solution is that over time, the screen enshrouding the well point may become clogged with particles, rendering the buried well point and line unusable. A better alternative may be to build spring boxes at the points of seepage. A well point could be used in conjunction with the spring box to filter large particulates. The advantage of building a spring box is that technicians will have easy access to the point of collection to perform routine maintenance. Installing a roof catchment system may be the most viable solution in increasing the water supply. As previously discussed in the assessment report, a gutter system could be fitted to all school buildings to collect rainwater runoff during the wet season. A cistern or reservoir could be constructed at each building to store the water. The water collected from the roofs may not be suitable for drinking but could be used for washing and cooking. Additionally, the reservoirs could be designed to incorporate a filtration mechanism within the storage tank, providing sufficient filtration to render the water drinkable. For more details, see Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report. 3.4.2 Water Conservation and Remediation A concerted effort to conserve the water that does reach the college is paramount. Currently, many of the faucets and spigots located throughout Muramba leak or do not turn off at all. Designing and implementing a faucet that can be manufactured locally or obtained domestically will be critical in water conservation. It was observed that many faucets were left running unattended for long periods of time, needlessly drawing down the amount of water in the storage tanks. A faucet designed with a gravity shutoff would ensure that water would not be wasted. In essence, the user would have to lift the faucet to get water. After use, the faucet would ‘fall’ and shutoff automatically. In conjunction with an improved faucet design, wastewater remediation and runoff collection may be another alternative to conserving non-potable water. Much water is wasted as a result of the leaky faucets and spigots. This water could be contained and redistributed to other areas facing a supply shortage. Alternatively, the wastewater could be used for irrigation to increase crop yield. A solar pasteurizer could be utilized to treat this runoff as well as incoming flow. The success of the aforementioned faucet relies on implementing an educational program on water use and conservation. It is vital that children and community members alike understand the importance of shutting off faucets, of conserving the water they do have. This education, be it formal or informal, could occur through the school system, through the Parish, or through a local technician.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 13 of 32
Fall 2004
4.0 RIVER CROSSING 4.1 Problem Description At their lowest elevations, the Muramba Parish and Muramba College water supply lines cross the Rungo River, where they are supported by five columns made of stone and concrete (Image 12). Here the Rungo River merges with a small tributary, and large boulders at the confluence direct the main flow to the right side of the channel. Riverbank erosion had undercut the foundation of one of the support columns, and threatened its structural integrity (Image 13). Both supply lines are cemented directly to the column, and if it were to topple they would be severed and the water supply to the village would be cut off. Due to these serious consequences the column needed to be reconstructed and strengthened to ensure the water lines continue to serve the community. A number of methods were investigated to determine how to best protect the column from future erosion, including reducing energy by constructing low-head weirs and water deflection techniques such as stone-filled revetments and gabions, and soil-covered riprap, among others. Following a site review and an assessment of the available resources we decided the optimal solution was to create a dry-stone wall upstream and downstream of the support column, after the base of the support column had been reconstructed. The project required five days work with a maximum of twenty laborers a day and two foremen. Also, several students from the vocational school volunteered to assist in the masonry work. Image 12: General setting of supply lines as they cross the Rungo River.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 14 of 32
Fall 2004
Image 13: Erosion has partially removed the foundation of a support column. 4.2 Implementation Process Before the project began a labor crew was selected. The foremen were chosen based on their previous experience with maintaining the water supply, and they were charged with gathering the labor crew to minimize the potential of creating social conflict. The first step in implementing the project was to divert the river away from the support column so the area could be excavated. This was accomplished by constructing a channel guide made of rocks and soil which moved the flow away from the column, and allowed the surrounding area to be cleared of vegetation, soil, and small boulders. The area was partially dried and large boulders were cemented in place at the base of the foundation. Then the column was rebuilt and expanded in the upstream direction by 2-3 feet while maintaining form similar to the original structure. Next, a large dry-rock wall was built upstream and downstream from the column for a length of about two to three times the maximum channel width. Once the column and riverbank were armored, the large boulders which had originally directed the river flow into the support column were moved from the left side of the channel to the right side in order to prevent further erosion and strengthen the base of the rock wall. The final product is shown in Image 14.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 15 of 32
Fall 2004
Image 14: View of strengthened support column, constructed dry-rock walls, and the boulders moved to the right bank
4.3 Materials and Budget This project required 20 laborers at $1.50/day, and 2 foremen at $6.00/day. All wages were paid at the end of the work period. Armoring the foundation required ___ bags of cement and collecting about 10 drums of sand at approximately $1.00/barrel. The labor crew used the shovels that were available and a few items purchased in Kigali such as shovels, sledge hammers, picks, and pry bars. 4.4 Recommendations The structural stability of the rock wall and support column must be checked during each visit to Muramba. Because the project was completed during the dry season and with only minor knowledge of wet season conditions, there remains a possibility that a large flood event could remove the rip-rap and weaken the supporting column. Also, the changes in the river geometry altered the natural flow conditions and, in the future, could affect the support column on the opposite side of the river. Utilizing local labor for this project was critical to its success, as the laborers and foremen demonstrated remarkable masonry skill (complicated by working in a river environment), worked very well as a team, and had unexpected intuition when constructing the dry wall and moving large rocks. It was apparent that much of the work
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 16 of 32
Fall 2004
the laborers performed was a teaching opportunity embraced the foremen, and the laborers learned much during the project. Further, the participation of students from the vocational school indicated the region has an abundance of well skilled masons and laborers that should be utilized in future projects.
5.0 LANDSLIDE 5.1 Problem Description The primary water delivery lines for the Muramba Parish and the College of Muramba are buried approximately 2.5 meters below grade in the clay soils that characterize much of the Rwandan landscape. These lines lay beneath the trail that links the project site to the mountain and hillside seeps where the community collects its water. For much of the distance of the main lines, there sections (~10 -15 m) where slopes are at 90% or greater and soil cohesiveness is the only force preventing further degradation of the pipe trenches. Frequent use of the community trails and ground-leveling for agricultural plots has resulted in the exposure of water lines in various locations. One such location had degraded to the point of instability and a landslide occurred, exposing approximately 10 m of pipe. 5.2 Implementation Process The landslide was repaired with the assistance of EWB students, village children and following men: John Paul Bazansanga (translator), Vianney Nsengimana (foreman), Jerihonidasi Ndayamba, Serafe Sindayigaya, Siriyake Bihezande, Innocent Nsabiyaremye, Peter Ntirubabara, Jean-Baptiste Mubenguka, Jean-Damacene Ndajambaje, Innocent Harerimana, and Joseph Ntirenganya. Before we began, we initiated a goat relocation program, which proved to be one of the more complicated tasks. Our approach was to first level and compact (gikomeye) the soil (taka) beneath the exposed pipe (ipombo or itiyo) line using the hoes (isuka) that the men had brought with them. Secondly, we surrounded the pipe with looser soil to provide a modicum of bedding. Next, we located a cache of bricks (itafari) that had been abandoned by the land user whose original excavation had caused the landslide. We were able to use these bricks to construct a concave retaining wall that stabilized the hillslope and prevented further degradation. Finally, we applied water (amazi) in order to increase the moisture content of the compacted soil and improve cohesiveness.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 17 of 32
Fall 2004
6.0 PLUMBING 6.1 Problem Description During the assessment trip in March, the water usage of the Muramba schools was assessed in order to understand the improvements that could be made in water conservation. It was determined that fixing leaky plumbing fixtures could reduce the amount of water lost. Also, the toilets in the school bathrooms were not functioning. Because of that, they had not been flushed recently and many were clogged. 6.2 Implementation Process The original goals of this project were to repair or replace leaky faucets and shower fixtures and implement a new system for flushing toilets in the schools. 6.2.1 Repairing and Replacing Leaky Fixtures In order to make it possible for the schools to maintain the bathroom fixtures, it was decided that replacement and repair parts should be procured in country. A brief survey of the plumbing fixtures was conducted in order to determine the size and type of fixtures needed. The faucets came in two sizes, ½ inch and ¾ inch. The wash stations inside the bathrooms used ½ inch fixtures while most outside faucets were 3/4inch. The main type of faucet was an Italian made spigot (Figure ### I believe Pete has a picture of it on his computer) The second type of faucet used was a silver Repair parts and supplies were to be purchased at Sonatubes, a plumbing supply house in Kigali. The team would then work with Louis, the maintenance man at Muramba college, to repair and install the fixtures. Unfortunately, though the fixtures are sold as complete units, it is not possible to buy repair parts for the fixtures, such as faucet washers, in country. A small number of complete fixtures were bought to replace fixtures that were missing. 6.2.2 Implementing a New “Flushing” System for Toilets Repairing toilets in the schools did not seem sustainable because they break easily and require a (relatively) large amount of water to flush. Instead of fixing the toilets, a sample of a “bucket flush” system was implemented. This type system is used at the Maria Goretti, and seems likely to be sustainable at Muramba College as well. One large barrel was purchased for the school as a sample of how the new system would work. Further barrels will be purchased by the school. We believe better care will be given to a system that has been purchased by the people who use it, making it more sustainable. 6.3 Materials and Budget (Audrey, I believe you have the receipts.) ___ ½ inch Italian ___type faucets were purchased for Muramba College and the Maria Goretti school. ___ 3/4 inch Italian ___type faucets were purchased 1 large barrel was purchased for Muramba College 2? Rolls of silicone plumbing tape were purchased
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 18 of 32
Fall 2004
6.4 Recommendations The largest problem of water conservation in Muramba seems to come less from leaking taps than from taps that have been left open. Because the water supply is capricious, taps that are not working are left open over buckets. When the water begins to run, the buckets overflow, wasting water. Conservation education efforts are being made, but a passive way of ensuring taps are not left open is installing simple gravity closing valves. In fact this type of tap is considered preferable by many of the local people because it is easier to use and more robust than their current taps. Unfortunately, the team was unable to find an example of this type of tap. The taps are stainless steel and tear-dropped shaped. The taps are also expensive (~$25 US dollars/tap). It is recommended that future teams concentrate their efforts on designing a gravity closing faucet that could be manufactured locally. A locally manufactured gravity closing faucet would not only conserve water, but also allow people to replace and maintain plumbing fixtures themselves, create local jobs, and possibly even generate revenue for the village.
7.0 SECOND SOURCE 7.1 Problem Description The villagers of Muramba face chronic water shortages and the water that is available for consumption is of questionable quality. The low quantity of water is the major inhibitor in Muramba for improvement in the areas of education, health care, and economic development. A gravity fed supply of approximately 2/3 L/s provides water for over 9,000 people living on the western side of Muramba, including a secondary boarding school of 400 students. This water supply is grossly inadequate, and the infrastructure supplying the water contains leaks and exposed pipes. 7.2 Implementation Process During the summer 2004 implementation trip, the EWB-UW team conducted a survey of the water system from the Muramba Parish church to the Kigali/Gisinyi road. The team intended to use a theodolite and GPS to gather survey data, but the equipment was lost in transit and was not recovered until the final day in Muramba. As a result, the team was forced to use compasses and a marked rope to conduct the topographic survey. This limited the scope of the survey, but the team was still able to gather valuable topographic and other data essential for improving the water distribution system.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 19 of 32
Fall 2004
7.2.1 Survey Description The detailed topographic survey covered nearly three kilometers stretching from the T intersection of the Muramba and Kigali/Gisenyi road to the Muramba Parish. The general topography of the survey route consists of two U-shaped profiles. This can be viewed from the appendix 11.3. The following describes each segment of the profile starting at the Muramba – Kigali/Gisenyi road and ending at the Muramba Parish. First Segment The first survey segment begins at the base of the Muramba-Esecom sign (2045m) and descends to a relative low point at a valve box (1963m). The existing water source enters Muramba near the Esecom sign (view appendix 11.4 for water infrastructure schematic) and travels to a collection box. (2049m).
Collection box dividing water between Esecom and nearby taps
Village Tap (teardrop
The collection box (view photo above) divides the water source (2/3 L/s) into two lines; one line proceeds to a nearby village reservoir, which later feeds a valve box and village taps (2026m; view photo above), while the second continues towards the relative low point of the valve box. Plastic pipe is exposed to the surface and foot traffic at two locations just before the relative low point. Second Segment The second survey segment begins at the valve box (1963m) and ascends to the Esecom collection box (2022m) and Esecom reservoir. This distance covers 676m.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 20 of 32
Survey route in direction of Kigali/Gisinyi road Survey route from Esecom to Kigali/Gisinyi road
The two photos above show this survey segment looking from the direction of Esecom to the Kigali/Gisinyi road. When the water reaches the Esecom collection box, it is divided between the Esecom school and the Esecom reservoir. The Esecom school line feeds three taps, all of which leak profusely. One of these taps is pictured below.
Leaky faucet at Esecom
The Esecom reservoir distributes water into three lines. One line is directed back in the direction of the Kigali/Gisinyi road to supply taps, while two others run in the direction of the parish. Third Segment The third survey segment descends from the Esecom reservoir (2023m) to the delivery clinic (1938m) and the proposed AIDS clinic (1934m). There is a large unused 16,000L reservoir (1975m) midway between the delivery clinic and the Y path junction for Esecom school. Two lines extend from the Esecom reservoir in the direction of the Parish. The first line feeds a village tap just below Esecom school, while the second line
Fall 2004
continues along the path past the proposed AIDS clinic and the delivery clinic, eventually feeding into three taps at a relative low point (1931m). Due to demand and leakage, little or no water fills this line, leaving the delivery clinic and proposed AIDS clinic without water. Three taps connected in series at the relative low point are without faucets and water periodically drips out of the first tap. Fourth Segment The fourth survey segment begins at the relative low point of the three taps (1931m) and ascends to the collection box just outside the Parish gates. The segment covers a distance of 300m and does not contain any functioning water infrastructure from the original 2/3 L/s source.
(Peter is going to add a section here about his discussion with Saidi, community leader)
Water Source A
note: (peter, stop 1)
The first untapped water source (2145m) is located several hundred meters from the road (direction Gisenyi). The area is sparsely populated, and is located either on or adjacent to government land in Gaseke District. The water flows at an estimated rate (peter’s orange book=3/8L/s) from a spring enclosing a depression of approximately 1.5m in diameter.
Water Source A
Currently, a plastic pipe inserted into the hillside collects a portion of the spring water. Water flows unrestricted out of this pipe and a small population living in the immediate vicinity depends on this source for their daily needs. Water Source B
note: (peter, stop 2)
Multiple springs are located at (2153m) in (orange notebook) District. The area is unpopulated and owned by the government. Water continuously seeps out of at least four springs.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 22 of 32
Springs of Water Source B
The vegetation in the photo above shows the abundance of spring water in the immediate vicinity. A metal pipe is inserted into a spring on the hillside and has an estimated flow rate of (orange book). The slope grade is far steeper than that of water source A, and this must be taken it account during spring box design and construction. 7.3 Materials and Budget The survey materials consisted of two Brunton compasses and a fifty meter rope. 7.4 Recommendations The current water supply for western Muramba is grossly insufficient, providing per capita less than seven liters of water per day. In order to improve the situation, it is necessary to tackle both water supply and conservation issues. Thus, adding the new sources described above into the existing water infrastructure will help alleviate water shortages. However, adding new capacity alone is not a complete solution. Numerous leaky faucets and other infrastructure weaknesses such as exposed plastic piping threaten the viability of the system. As a result, new water sources must be completed in conjunction with faucet and infrastructure improvements. To ensure sustainability, the faucet and other water infrastructure improvements must be made in close consultation with Saidi, the water authority, and the administrators of Esecom, the secondary boarding school.
8.0 SUB-PROJECTS 8.1 Sand Filter 8.2 Water Tower Stand Pipe
Fall 2004
8.3 Pipeline Troubleshooting Peter Bosscher and Perry Cabot spent an afternoon troubleshooting various problems that they surmised after seeing that the delivery of water to the Muramba Parish and the Maria Goretti School had not significantly improved, despite the addition of a new source. The Parish water tank has several gate valves that can be used to redirect the flow of water. This system is not complicated, but future teams will need to have at least one person who fully understands how the tank is operated. After witnessing the water tank refill through the exit standpipe, we determined that below grade line which connected the elevated Parish tank to the buried concrete Goretti tank (approx. 5 meter away) was clogged. Innocent Kambanda led a team of workers into the evening using pipe wrenches (urufunguza) and hacksaws (scie à métaux) to open the pipe and remove the clog. Future workers should plan on screening the standpipe inside the Parish tank to prevent further clogs from occurring.
9.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 9.1 Travel, Lodging, and Project Contacts 9.2 Summary of Component Implementation 9.3 Final Budget 9.4 Lessons Learned and Future Evaluations
10.0 References Water for the World; “Maintaining Intakes: Technical Note No. RWS. 1.O.2; www.lifewater.org
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 24 of 32
Fall 2004
11.0 Appendix 11.1 Contacts Professor Peter Bosscher [email protected]
Student Team: Matt Bretl [email protected] Perry Cabot [email protected] Amelia Cosgrove [email protected] Andrew (Andy) Griggle [email protected] Andrew (Drew) Lockman [email protected] Audrey Miller [email protected] Tim Miller [email protected] Evan Parks [email protected]
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 25 of 32
11.2 Flow Rates
Collection Box
Pipe
Flow Rate (L/min)
Flow Rate (L/day)
Flow Rate (gal/day)
4.63 4.69 4.92 4.93 4.86
25219.78 25553.24 26842.11 26861.74 26493.51
6663.09 6751.19 7091.71 7096.89 6999.61
18.86
4.98
27159.76
7175.63
4.00 4.00 4.00
16.76 17.80 17.53
4.43 4.70 4.63
24134.08 25637.98 25244.70
6376.24 6773.58 6669.67
0.34 0.36
4.00 4.00
11.70 11.01
3.09 2.91
16842.11 15853.21
4449.70 4188.43
15.22
0.25
4.14
16.78
4.43
24167.47
6385.07
1.10 1.20 1.30
64.02 84.32 92.48
1.07 1.41 1.54
2.90 4.00 4.00
2.72 2.85 2.60
0.72 0.75 0.69
3913.78 4098.67 3737.02
1034.02 1082.87 987.32
2.10 2.20
19.86 19.42
0.33 0.32
4.00 4.00
12.08 12.36
3.19 3.27
17401.81 17796.09
4597.57 4701.74
Time (s)
Time (min)
Volume (L)
1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50
14.56 14.37 13.68 13.67 13.86
0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23
4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25
17.51 17.75 18.64 18.65 18.40
1.60
13.52
0.23
4.25
2.10 2.20 2.30
14.32 13.48 13.69
0.24 0.22 0.23
3.10 3.20
20.52 21.80
Run.Trial
Flow Rate (gal/min)
College Collection Box 1 length: 39.5" width: 39.5" height: 51" height of overflow: 31.5" max capacity: 805 L outflow pipe 3.5" OD 3" ID
Inflow Pipe 1
Average Inflow Pipe 2
Fall 2004
Collection Box
Pipe
Total
Run.Trial 2.30 2.40
Time (s) 17.87 22.45
Time (min) 0.30 0.37
Volume (L) 4.00 4.00
Flow Rate (L/min) 13.43 10.69
Flow Rate (gal/min) 3.55 2.82
Flow Rate (L/day) 19339.68 15394.21
Flow Rate (gal/day) 5109.56 4067.16
Average
45.77
0.76
3.84
8.10
2.14
11668.75
3082.89
24.89
6.57
35836.22
9467.96
Average
College Collection Box 2 length: 38" width: 38" height: 48" height of overflow: 34" height of outflow: 3.5" max capacity: 804.5 L
Inflow Pipe 1
1.10
288.61
4.81
4.00
0.83
0.22
1197.46
316.37
2.10
329.00
5.48
4.00
0.73
0.19
1050.46
277.53
308.81
5.15
4.00
0.78
0.21
1123.96
296.95
1.10 1.20 1.30
25.00 23.86 24.21
0.42 0.40 0.40
4.50 4.50 4.50
10.80 11.32 11.15
2.85 2.99 2.95
15552.00 16295.05 16059.48
4108.85 4305.17 4242.93
2.10 2.20
20.00 20.00
0.33 0.33
4.00 4.00
12.00 12.00
3.17 3.17
17280.00 17280.00
4565.39 4565.39
22.61
0.38
4.30
11.45
3.03
16493.31
4357.54
32.68 32.86 33.42
0.54 0.55 0.56
4.50 4.50 4.50
8.26 8.22 8.08
2.18 2.17 2.13
11897.18 11832.01 11633.75
3143.25 3126.03 3073.65
Average Inflow Pipe 2
Average Inflow Pipe 3
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
1.10 1.20 1.30
Page 27 of 32
Fall 2004
Collection Box
Pipe
Total
Run.Trial
Time (s)
Time (min)
Volume (L)
Average
32.99
0.55
4.50
Average
Flow Rate (L/min)
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Flow Rate (L/day)
Flow Rate (gal/day)
8.19
2.16
11787.65
3114.31
20.42
5.40
29404.92
7768.80
New College Source Outflow
1.10 1.20 1.30
15.61 16.02 15.68
0.26 0.27 0.26
1.00 1.00 1.00
3.84 3.75 3.83
1.02 0.99 1.01
5534.91 5393.26 5510.20
1462.33 1424.90 1455.80
2.10
364.12
6.07
20.00
3.30
0.87
4745.69
1253.81
3.68
0.97
5296.02
1399.21
Average Parish Collection Box 1 length: 26.25" width: 27" height: 40.25" overflow height 1: 32.25" overflow height 2: 31.5" overflow pipe 1 2" OD overflow pipe 2 2.25" OD outflow pipe 2" OD
Inflow Pipe 1
1.10
297.56
4.96
4.50
0.91
0.24
1306.63
345.21
2.10
67.34
1.12
1.00
0.89
0.24
1283.04
338.98
182.45
3.04
2.75
0.90
0.24
1294.83
342.10
15.46 23.87 22.09 21.58 16.96
0.26 0.40 0.37 0.36 0.28
4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
17.46 11.31 12.22 12.51 15.92
4.61 2.99 3.23 3.31 4.21
25148.77 16288.23 17600.72 18016.68 22924.53
6644.33 4303.36 4650.13 4760.02 6056.68
Average Inflow Pipe 2
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50
Page 28 of 32
Fall 2004
Collection Box
Pipe
Run.Trial 2.10 2.20 2.30
Time (s) 21.36 20.09 20.27
Time (min) 0.36 0.33 0.34
Volume (L) 4.50 4.50 4.50
Flow Rate (L/min) 12.64 13.44 13.32
Flow Rate (gal/min) 3.34 3.55 3.52
Flow Rate (L/day) 18202.25 19352.91 19181.06
Flow Rate (gal/day) 4809.05 5113.05 5067.65
Average
20.21
0.34
4.50
13.36
3.53
19238.00
5082.70
1.10 1.20 1.30
41.30 39.42 39.95
0.69 0.66 0.67
4.50 4.50 4.50
6.54 6.85 6.76
1.73 1.81 1.79
9414.04 9863.01 9732.17
2487.20 2605.82 2571.25
2.10
42.40
0.71
4.50
6.37
1.68
9169.81
2422.67
40.22
0.67
4.50
6.63
1.75
9544.76
2521.73
20.89
5.52
30089.39
7949.64
8.63
2.28
12433.64
3284.98
Inflow Pipe 3
Average Total
Average
Parish Collection Box 2 length: 23" width: 23" height: 41" outflow pipe 3" OD
Inflow Pipe 1 Inflow Pipe 2
Spring Box in Ravine outflow pipe 2.5" OD
Angle Box
Outflow Pipe
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
1.10
31.27
0.52
4.50
Page 29 of 32
Fall 2004
Collection Box Length: 18" Width: 19" Height: 19" outflow pipe 2" OD inflow pipe 2.5" OD inflow pipe height 7.5"
Pipe
Run.Trial
Inflow Pipe
1.10 1.20 1.30
Average
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Flow Rate (L/min)
Time (s)
Time (min)
Volume (L)
18.84 18.45 18.45
0.31 0.31 0.31
4.50 4.50 4.50
14.33 14.63 14.63
18.58
0.31
4.50
14.53
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Page 30 of 32
Flow Rate (L/day)
Flow Rate (gal/day)
3.79 3.87 3.87
20636.94 21073.17 21073.17
5452.30 5567.55 5567.55
3.84
20925.73
5528.59
Fall 2004
11.3 Cross Section Schematic
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 31 of 32
Fall 2004
11.4 Water Infrastructure Schematic
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 32 of 32
Prepared by: ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS M1074 ENGINEERING CENTERS BUILDING 1550 Engineering Drive MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706-1609
Fall 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................... 4 1.1 Site Assessment ........................................................................................................ 4 1.2 Contacts..................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Budget and Funding.................................................................................................. 4 1.4 Engineering Components Considered....................................................................... 4 2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT........................... 4 2.1 Professional/Student Chapters Involved ................................................................... 4 2.2 Assigning of Components......................................................................................... 5 3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................ 6 3.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion .............................................................................. 7 3.2 Implementation Process ............................................................................................ 8 3.2.1 Water Quality................................................................................................... 10 3.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 11 3.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 12 3.4.1 Water Collection .............................................................................................. 12 3.4.2 Water Conservation and Remediation ............................................................. 13 4.0 RIVER CROSSING.................................................................................................... 14 4.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 14 4.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 15 4.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 16 4.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 16 5.0 LANDSLIDE .............................................................................................................. 17 5.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 17 5.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 17 6.0 PLUMBING................................................................................................................ 18 6.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 18 6.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 18 6.2.1 Repairing and Replacing Leaky Fixtures......................................................... 18 6.2.2 Implementing a New “Flushing” System for Toilets....................................... 18 6.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 18 6.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 19 7.0 SECOND SOURCE.................................................................................................... 19 7.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 19 7.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 19 7.2.1 Survey Description........................................................................................... 20 7.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 23 7.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 23 8.0 SUB-PROJECTS ........................................................................................................ 23 8.1 Sand Filter............................................................................................................... 23 8.2 Water Tower Stand Pipe ......................................................................................... 23 8.3 Pipeline Troubleshooting ........................................................................................ 24 9.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................... 24 9.1 Travel, Lodging, and Project Contacts ................................................................... 24 9.2 Summary of Component Implementation............................................................... 24
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 2 of 32
Fall 2004
9.3 Final Budget............................................................................................................ 24 9.4 Lessons Learned and Future Evaluations ............................................................... 24 10.0 References................................................................................................................. 24 11.0 Appendix................................................................................................................... 25 11.1 Contacts................................................................................................................. 25 11.2 Flow Rates ............................................................................................................ 26 11.3 Cross Section Schematic....................................................................................... 31 11.4 Water Infrastructure Schematic ............................................................................ 32
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 3 of 32
Fall 2004
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION From July 15-31, 2004, a group of eight students, one professor, and one medical doctor traveled to Muramba to for the Phase I Implementation trip. UW-Madison Professor Peter Bosscher went on the July trip, as well as the March 2004 site assessment. Goals for the July trip were gathered from the Site Assessment Report, Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report (www.ewb-usa.org) and from Bosscher’s expertise. Six projects were selected to complete in July 2004. They are described in sections 2.0-7.0. However, when the group arrived to Muramba, more projects were added to the workload (section 8.0). Another EWB group plans to visit Muramba in January 2005, to install a rainwater catchment scheme to increase water quantity. 1.1 Site Assessment Please see the March 2004 Survey Trip at www.ewb-usa.org 1.2 Contacts Contacts specific to the July 2004 trip are in Appendix 11.1 Additional contacts are in Appendix 8.3 Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report. 1.3 Budget and Funding The Phase I Implementation was paid for through a grant obtained primarily by Peter Bosscher. 1.4 Engineering Components Considered The Phase I Implementation team tried to increase quantity and quality of the existing source (Source Improvement 3.0). Teams were formed to repair the River Crossing (4.0), Landslide (5.0), and Plumbing (6.0). A second source of water was surveyed (7.0). Furthermore, once in Muramba, many other problems with the water system including pope clogs (8.3) and conservation issues (3.4.2) unfolded and were addressed.
2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT 2.1 Professional/Student Chapters Involved UW-Madison Students comprised the July 2004 trip. CU-Boulder and UW-Madison are partnering chapters for the Muramba, Rwanda project. No professional chapters were involved in the Phase I Implementation.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 4 of 32
Fall 2004
2.2 Assigning of Components Leaders were assigned to each of the projects based on desire and skill set. For further information regarding the projects, the following people should be contacted: Project 3.0 Source Improvement 4.0 River Crossing 5.0 Landslide 6.0 Plumbing 7.0 Second Source 8.0 Sub-Projects
Contact(s) Tim Miller [email protected] Audrey Miller [email protected] Andrew Lockman [email protected] Perry Cabot [email protected] Amelia Cosgrove [email protected] Evan Parks [email protected] Matt Bretl [email protected] Peter Bosscher [email protected]
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 5 of 32
Fall 2004
3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT To plan for source improvement, the UW Madison group gathered information from the March 2004 site assessment report Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report, Pete Bosscher, and Andrea Khosropour. The site assessment report, which can be found at http://www.ewb-usa.org/ explained the “current water supply is being gathered from six surface water locations into collection boxes.” The quantity and quality of the water was insufficient to provide water for 1,200 people. Proceeding under the assumption that all the water collected was surface water, the team planned to improve the water quality with a spring box, dam, or wellpoint. However, when the team arrived, it was found that only one of the collections sites gathered surface water. When walking to the second source, one comes upon 4 collection boxes. Further up the hill, there is a 1.25” PVC pipe collecting surface water. Innocent, the water system maintenance and repairman explained the water flowing into the four collection boxes are from an underground source. The only surface water collection observed was the 1.25” PVC pipe sitting in a stream (Images 1 and 2). Images 1 and 2 show the only known source of contamination in the water system.
Image 1: Surface water collection
Image 2: 1.25” PVC pipe collecting surface water
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 6 of 32
Fall 2004
3.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion 3.1.1 Quantity Innocent gathered a team of workers to tap a new water source. The new source increased the quantity by 3.7 Liters per minute, or 5296 Liters per day. All Flow Rates in Appendix 11.2 Flow Rates. 3.1.2 Quality To address the water quality problem, the team cut off the surface water supply collection as pictured in Images 1 and 2. However, Louis, a maintenance repairman and Innocent’s protégé, later reconnected the source because the college was not receiving enough water. For this reason, another trip is necessary in January 2005. The existing water system cannot supply a sufficient amount of clean water to the 1,200 users.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 7 of 32
Fall 2004
3.2 Implementation Process Innocent was the driving force behind tapping the new source. With the available resources, he is capable of tapping sources and maintaining the system. The EWB team serves as a catalyst and resource pool to tap an additional source. Innocent showed the EWB team a place where he believed a seep could be tapped. Using pictures, the process is explained.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 8 of 32
Fall 2004
A wellpoint brought by the EWB team from the US was placed on the bedrock where the seep was flowing. The pipe extending out of the page (Image 6) is the galvanized steel piping.
The water flow from the seep was directed to the wellpoint using clay to form a funnel. Stones were placed to surround the wellpoint (Image 7) to help keep small particles from clogging the porous fiberglass surface of the wellpoint.
Image 9 shows the creek crossing. A mortar and stone wall was later built around the pipe to prevent animals from kicking the pipe. The top of the picture is the source and the bottom is the other side of the drainage. The water then flows into a PVC pipe which is joined with the college pipeline.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 9 of 32
Fall 2004
3.2.1 Water Quality To physically address the water quality issues, we devised and constructed a filtration device to be placed in the collection box nearest to the Parish (called CM2 in Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report ). We choose this collection box because it was the last point of entry for inflow and potential contaminants before the water flowed to the Parish water tower. The filtration device filters out grass, large sediment, and other particulates, which reduces the probability of potential clogs in the pipeline that are not easily remedied. Additionally, the filter screens large particles and sediment that contribute to the turbidity and overall uncleanliness of the water and improves the aesthetic appeal of the water. A well-point and a series of couplings comprised the filtration device, pictured below before and after installation.
As water flows through the well point, sediment will accumulate in the screen enshrouding the point. To ensure that the filtration device functions properly over time, the screens on the well point must be cleaned periodically to guarantee that there is sufficient water flow to the users. Such maintenance may necessitate a schedule that village technicians can follow regularly. If the well-point screen becomes clogged, causing the filter to not function properly, the flow of water could decrease or even stop completely, causing even greater water quantity shortfalls. Additionally, the sediment that accumulates in the collection box should be removed periodically as well. After placing the filtration device in the collection box and securing it to the outflow pipe, we observed that the water level in the collection box did not change. This indicated that the inflow and outflow rates remained constant after the implementation of the well point. As the screen becomes clogged with sediment, the inflow rate will exceed the outflow rate and the water level in the collection box will rise.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 10 of 32
Fall 2004
3.3 Materials and Budget Materials for the Source Improvement Item Hose/Pipe Adaptor, brass 3/4f x 3/4m x 1/2f Pipe, galvanized 1-1/4" x 48" Check Valve, Brass, 1-1/4" Sprayer Pipe Reducer Coupling, Poly 1-1/2" x 1" Sprayer Hose Barb, 1-1/2" Reducer Bushing, 1 x 3/4 Hose Barb, 1-1/2" Thread x 1-1/2" Shank Nipple, Galvanized, 1-1/4 x 3 Cistern Pump, #3 Steel Post Driver w/ Handle Sprayer Pipe Reducer Coupling, Poly 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" Check Valve, In-Line, 1-1/4" x 1-1/2" Flex Coupling, PVC, 1-1/4" x 1-1/4" Flex Coupling, PVC, 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" Drive Coupling, 1-1/4" Drive Cap Pipe Joint Compound w/ Teflon, 4 oz. Fertilizer Solution Hose, 1-1/2" x 1" Well Point, Fiberglass 60 Gauze, 1-1/4" Hose Barb, 1-1/4" Thread x 1-1/2" Shank 500 Ft Reload Twisted Gold Line Reel Refill 100 Ct. 21" Glo Orange Marking Flags
Units 2 4 2
Unit Cost 1.89 11.99 14.99
Cost Vendor 3.78 Farm & Fleet 47.96 Farm & Fleet 29.98 Farm & Fleet
2 2 2 2 2 1 1
4.29 1.59 1.49 3.59 1.29 55.99 12.99
8.58 3.18 2.98 7.18 2.58 55.99 12.99
Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet
3 1 2 2 4 2 1 4 2 2 1 1
4.29 8.79 1.85 1.85 7.29 6.99 2.99 1.39 39.99 1.59 6.99 6.99 Total
12.87 8.79 3.7 3.7 29.16 13.98 2.99 5.56 79.98 3.18 6.99 6.99 353.09
Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet Farm & Fleet
Note Not all materials listed were used for the source improvement project. Some supplies were purchased in Kigali, including PVC piping and assorted couplings. All remaining supplies were left in Muramba for future use.
Inventory of Remaining Supplies Item Hand pump PVC pipe PVC pipe coupler Hose barb Drive cap
Description #3 Pitcher pump with lever 63 mm dia. 63 mm dia. 1.25”-1.50” 1.25”
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Quantity 1 ~ 10 ft. 1 1 1
Page 11 of 32
Fall 2004
Fernco coupler Galvanized iron coupler Copper check valve Caulk gun Nipples Reducer coupling Reducer coupling PVC coupling Female hose adaptor Reducer coupling Ball valve Male PVC coupling Non-collapsing hose Hose barb Hose barb Fence post driver Marker flags
1.25”-1.25” 3” 1.25” 1.25” 1.50”-1.00” 1.50”-1.25” 1.25”-1.00” 0.75”-0.75” 1.00”-0.75” 2” 2” Reinforced, 1.5” 1.50”-1.25”, 90° 1.25”-2.00” Weighted
1 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 ~5 ft. 1 1 1 100
3.4 Recommendations 3.4.1 Water Collection An assessment of Muramba’s water resource availability reveals that the current water resources are still inadequate to meet the consumption needs of Muramba College and the surrounding schools. Despite tapping into an additional source that provided an additional flow, the community continues to suffer from a lack of potable water. Addressing this issue will require tapping into additional groundwater sources while conserving the water resources now being consumed. A comprehensive water budget would provide a reasonable estimate of how much water the community uses. Some factors to consider may include the water usage of the College girls, the water usage for cooking, and seasonal consumption cycles. As mentioned in Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report, a number of alternatives may supplement the current supply. However, not all of the alternatives are feasible. One possible solution mentioned previously was to increase the diameter of pipe at the sources that feed the collection boxes. A larger cross-sectional area of pipe would enable more water to flow into the system. It is not feasible to expand the diameter of the buried pipes because excavating the collection points would disrupt a stable agriculture above these points and the gain would be minimal. With the assistance of local experts, we discovered that all water collection points are underground except for one surface water source. The only surface water source could be damned to maximize collection. However, it was evident from the large pools of standing water, which were infested with insects, that this source may be the sole contaminator of the entire system and may contribute to the sickness experienced by much of the community.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 12 of 32
Fall 2004
Tapping into additional groundwater sources may prove to be a reasonable solution. Community members are skilled at locating and excavating seepage points that would provide clean, uncontaminated water. Water collected from these sources could be piped into existing lines, thereby increasing the overall flow into the system. A possible drawback to this solution is that over time, the screen enshrouding the well point may become clogged with particles, rendering the buried well point and line unusable. A better alternative may be to build spring boxes at the points of seepage. A well point could be used in conjunction with the spring box to filter large particulates. The advantage of building a spring box is that technicians will have easy access to the point of collection to perform routine maintenance. Installing a roof catchment system may be the most viable solution in increasing the water supply. As previously discussed in the assessment report, a gutter system could be fitted to all school buildings to collect rainwater runoff during the wet season. A cistern or reservoir could be constructed at each building to store the water. The water collected from the roofs may not be suitable for drinking but could be used for washing and cooking. Additionally, the reservoirs could be designed to incorporate a filtration mechanism within the storage tank, providing sufficient filtration to render the water drinkable. For more details, see Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report. 3.4.2 Water Conservation and Remediation A concerted effort to conserve the water that does reach the college is paramount. Currently, many of the faucets and spigots located throughout Muramba leak or do not turn off at all. Designing and implementing a faucet that can be manufactured locally or obtained domestically will be critical in water conservation. It was observed that many faucets were left running unattended for long periods of time, needlessly drawing down the amount of water in the storage tanks. A faucet designed with a gravity shutoff would ensure that water would not be wasted. In essence, the user would have to lift the faucet to get water. After use, the faucet would ‘fall’ and shutoff automatically. In conjunction with an improved faucet design, wastewater remediation and runoff collection may be another alternative to conserving non-potable water. Much water is wasted as a result of the leaky faucets and spigots. This water could be contained and redistributed to other areas facing a supply shortage. Alternatively, the wastewater could be used for irrigation to increase crop yield. A solar pasteurizer could be utilized to treat this runoff as well as incoming flow. The success of the aforementioned faucet relies on implementing an educational program on water use and conservation. It is vital that children and community members alike understand the importance of shutting off faucets, of conserving the water they do have. This education, be it formal or informal, could occur through the school system, through the Parish, or through a local technician.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 13 of 32
Fall 2004
4.0 RIVER CROSSING 4.1 Problem Description At their lowest elevations, the Muramba Parish and Muramba College water supply lines cross the Rungo River, where they are supported by five columns made of stone and concrete (Image 12). Here the Rungo River merges with a small tributary, and large boulders at the confluence direct the main flow to the right side of the channel. Riverbank erosion had undercut the foundation of one of the support columns, and threatened its structural integrity (Image 13). Both supply lines are cemented directly to the column, and if it were to topple they would be severed and the water supply to the village would be cut off. Due to these serious consequences the column needed to be reconstructed and strengthened to ensure the water lines continue to serve the community. A number of methods were investigated to determine how to best protect the column from future erosion, including reducing energy by constructing low-head weirs and water deflection techniques such as stone-filled revetments and gabions, and soil-covered riprap, among others. Following a site review and an assessment of the available resources we decided the optimal solution was to create a dry-stone wall upstream and downstream of the support column, after the base of the support column had been reconstructed. The project required five days work with a maximum of twenty laborers a day and two foremen. Also, several students from the vocational school volunteered to assist in the masonry work. Image 12: General setting of supply lines as they cross the Rungo River.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 14 of 32
Fall 2004
Image 13: Erosion has partially removed the foundation of a support column. 4.2 Implementation Process Before the project began a labor crew was selected. The foremen were chosen based on their previous experience with maintaining the water supply, and they were charged with gathering the labor crew to minimize the potential of creating social conflict. The first step in implementing the project was to divert the river away from the support column so the area could be excavated. This was accomplished by constructing a channel guide made of rocks and soil which moved the flow away from the column, and allowed the surrounding area to be cleared of vegetation, soil, and small boulders. The area was partially dried and large boulders were cemented in place at the base of the foundation. Then the column was rebuilt and expanded in the upstream direction by 2-3 feet while maintaining form similar to the original structure. Next, a large dry-rock wall was built upstream and downstream from the column for a length of about two to three times the maximum channel width. Once the column and riverbank were armored, the large boulders which had originally directed the river flow into the support column were moved from the left side of the channel to the right side in order to prevent further erosion and strengthen the base of the rock wall. The final product is shown in Image 14.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 15 of 32
Fall 2004
Image 14: View of strengthened support column, constructed dry-rock walls, and the boulders moved to the right bank
4.3 Materials and Budget This project required 20 laborers at $1.50/day, and 2 foremen at $6.00/day. All wages were paid at the end of the work period. Armoring the foundation required ___ bags of cement and collecting about 10 drums of sand at approximately $1.00/barrel. The labor crew used the shovels that were available and a few items purchased in Kigali such as shovels, sledge hammers, picks, and pry bars. 4.4 Recommendations The structural stability of the rock wall and support column must be checked during each visit to Muramba. Because the project was completed during the dry season and with only minor knowledge of wet season conditions, there remains a possibility that a large flood event could remove the rip-rap and weaken the supporting column. Also, the changes in the river geometry altered the natural flow conditions and, in the future, could affect the support column on the opposite side of the river. Utilizing local labor for this project was critical to its success, as the laborers and foremen demonstrated remarkable masonry skill (complicated by working in a river environment), worked very well as a team, and had unexpected intuition when constructing the dry wall and moving large rocks. It was apparent that much of the work
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 16 of 32
Fall 2004
the laborers performed was a teaching opportunity embraced the foremen, and the laborers learned much during the project. Further, the participation of students from the vocational school indicated the region has an abundance of well skilled masons and laborers that should be utilized in future projects.
5.0 LANDSLIDE 5.1 Problem Description The primary water delivery lines for the Muramba Parish and the College of Muramba are buried approximately 2.5 meters below grade in the clay soils that characterize much of the Rwandan landscape. These lines lay beneath the trail that links the project site to the mountain and hillside seeps where the community collects its water. For much of the distance of the main lines, there sections (~10 -15 m) where slopes are at 90% or greater and soil cohesiveness is the only force preventing further degradation of the pipe trenches. Frequent use of the community trails and ground-leveling for agricultural plots has resulted in the exposure of water lines in various locations. One such location had degraded to the point of instability and a landslide occurred, exposing approximately 10 m of pipe. 5.2 Implementation Process The landslide was repaired with the assistance of EWB students, village children and following men: John Paul Bazansanga (translator), Vianney Nsengimana (foreman), Jerihonidasi Ndayamba, Serafe Sindayigaya, Siriyake Bihezande, Innocent Nsabiyaremye, Peter Ntirubabara, Jean-Baptiste Mubenguka, Jean-Damacene Ndajambaje, Innocent Harerimana, and Joseph Ntirenganya. Before we began, we initiated a goat relocation program, which proved to be one of the more complicated tasks. Our approach was to first level and compact (gikomeye) the soil (taka) beneath the exposed pipe (ipombo or itiyo) line using the hoes (isuka) that the men had brought with them. Secondly, we surrounded the pipe with looser soil to provide a modicum of bedding. Next, we located a cache of bricks (itafari) that had been abandoned by the land user whose original excavation had caused the landslide. We were able to use these bricks to construct a concave retaining wall that stabilized the hillslope and prevented further degradation. Finally, we applied water (amazi) in order to increase the moisture content of the compacted soil and improve cohesiveness.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 17 of 32
Fall 2004
6.0 PLUMBING 6.1 Problem Description During the assessment trip in March, the water usage of the Muramba schools was assessed in order to understand the improvements that could be made in water conservation. It was determined that fixing leaky plumbing fixtures could reduce the amount of water lost. Also, the toilets in the school bathrooms were not functioning. Because of that, they had not been flushed recently and many were clogged. 6.2 Implementation Process The original goals of this project were to repair or replace leaky faucets and shower fixtures and implement a new system for flushing toilets in the schools. 6.2.1 Repairing and Replacing Leaky Fixtures In order to make it possible for the schools to maintain the bathroom fixtures, it was decided that replacement and repair parts should be procured in country. A brief survey of the plumbing fixtures was conducted in order to determine the size and type of fixtures needed. The faucets came in two sizes, ½ inch and ¾ inch. The wash stations inside the bathrooms used ½ inch fixtures while most outside faucets were 3/4inch. The main type of faucet was an Italian made spigot (Figure ### I believe Pete has a picture of it on his computer) The second type of faucet used was a silver Repair parts and supplies were to be purchased at Sonatubes, a plumbing supply house in Kigali. The team would then work with Louis, the maintenance man at Muramba college, to repair and install the fixtures. Unfortunately, though the fixtures are sold as complete units, it is not possible to buy repair parts for the fixtures, such as faucet washers, in country. A small number of complete fixtures were bought to replace fixtures that were missing. 6.2.2 Implementing a New “Flushing” System for Toilets Repairing toilets in the schools did not seem sustainable because they break easily and require a (relatively) large amount of water to flush. Instead of fixing the toilets, a sample of a “bucket flush” system was implemented. This type system is used at the Maria Goretti, and seems likely to be sustainable at Muramba College as well. One large barrel was purchased for the school as a sample of how the new system would work. Further barrels will be purchased by the school. We believe better care will be given to a system that has been purchased by the people who use it, making it more sustainable. 6.3 Materials and Budget (Audrey, I believe you have the receipts.) ___ ½ inch Italian ___type faucets were purchased for Muramba College and the Maria Goretti school. ___ 3/4 inch Italian ___type faucets were purchased 1 large barrel was purchased for Muramba College 2? Rolls of silicone plumbing tape were purchased
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 18 of 32
Fall 2004
6.4 Recommendations The largest problem of water conservation in Muramba seems to come less from leaking taps than from taps that have been left open. Because the water supply is capricious, taps that are not working are left open over buckets. When the water begins to run, the buckets overflow, wasting water. Conservation education efforts are being made, but a passive way of ensuring taps are not left open is installing simple gravity closing valves. In fact this type of tap is considered preferable by many of the local people because it is easier to use and more robust than their current taps. Unfortunately, the team was unable to find an example of this type of tap. The taps are stainless steel and tear-dropped shaped. The taps are also expensive (~$25 US dollars/tap). It is recommended that future teams concentrate their efforts on designing a gravity closing faucet that could be manufactured locally. A locally manufactured gravity closing faucet would not only conserve water, but also allow people to replace and maintain plumbing fixtures themselves, create local jobs, and possibly even generate revenue for the village.
7.0 SECOND SOURCE 7.1 Problem Description The villagers of Muramba face chronic water shortages and the water that is available for consumption is of questionable quality. The low quantity of water is the major inhibitor in Muramba for improvement in the areas of education, health care, and economic development. A gravity fed supply of approximately 2/3 L/s provides water for over 9,000 people living on the western side of Muramba, including a secondary boarding school of 400 students. This water supply is grossly inadequate, and the infrastructure supplying the water contains leaks and exposed pipes. 7.2 Implementation Process During the summer 2004 implementation trip, the EWB-UW team conducted a survey of the water system from the Muramba Parish church to the Kigali/Gisinyi road. The team intended to use a theodolite and GPS to gather survey data, but the equipment was lost in transit and was not recovered until the final day in Muramba. As a result, the team was forced to use compasses and a marked rope to conduct the topographic survey. This limited the scope of the survey, but the team was still able to gather valuable topographic and other data essential for improving the water distribution system.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 19 of 32
Fall 2004
7.2.1 Survey Description The detailed topographic survey covered nearly three kilometers stretching from the T intersection of the Muramba and Kigali/Gisenyi road to the Muramba Parish. The general topography of the survey route consists of two U-shaped profiles. This can be viewed from the appendix 11.3. The following describes each segment of the profile starting at the Muramba – Kigali/Gisenyi road and ending at the Muramba Parish. First Segment The first survey segment begins at the base of the Muramba-Esecom sign (2045m) and descends to a relative low point at a valve box (1963m). The existing water source enters Muramba near the Esecom sign (view appendix 11.4 for water infrastructure schematic) and travels to a collection box. (2049m).
Collection box dividing water between Esecom and nearby taps
Village Tap (teardrop
The collection box (view photo above) divides the water source (2/3 L/s) into two lines; one line proceeds to a nearby village reservoir, which later feeds a valve box and village taps (2026m; view photo above), while the second continues towards the relative low point of the valve box. Plastic pipe is exposed to the surface and foot traffic at two locations just before the relative low point. Second Segment The second survey segment begins at the valve box (1963m) and ascends to the Esecom collection box (2022m) and Esecom reservoir. This distance covers 676m.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 20 of 32
Survey route in direction of Kigali/Gisinyi road Survey route from Esecom to Kigali/Gisinyi road
The two photos above show this survey segment looking from the direction of Esecom to the Kigali/Gisinyi road. When the water reaches the Esecom collection box, it is divided between the Esecom school and the Esecom reservoir. The Esecom school line feeds three taps, all of which leak profusely. One of these taps is pictured below.
Leaky faucet at Esecom
The Esecom reservoir distributes water into three lines. One line is directed back in the direction of the Kigali/Gisinyi road to supply taps, while two others run in the direction of the parish. Third Segment The third survey segment descends from the Esecom reservoir (2023m) to the delivery clinic (1938m) and the proposed AIDS clinic (1934m). There is a large unused 16,000L reservoir (1975m) midway between the delivery clinic and the Y path junction for Esecom school. Two lines extend from the Esecom reservoir in the direction of the Parish. The first line feeds a village tap just below Esecom school, while the second line
Fall 2004
continues along the path past the proposed AIDS clinic and the delivery clinic, eventually feeding into three taps at a relative low point (1931m). Due to demand and leakage, little or no water fills this line, leaving the delivery clinic and proposed AIDS clinic without water. Three taps connected in series at the relative low point are without faucets and water periodically drips out of the first tap. Fourth Segment The fourth survey segment begins at the relative low point of the three taps (1931m) and ascends to the collection box just outside the Parish gates. The segment covers a distance of 300m and does not contain any functioning water infrastructure from the original 2/3 L/s source.
(Peter is going to add a section here about his discussion with Saidi, community leader)
Water Source A
note: (peter, stop 1)
The first untapped water source (2145m) is located several hundred meters from the road (direction Gisenyi). The area is sparsely populated, and is located either on or adjacent to government land in Gaseke District. The water flows at an estimated rate (peter’s orange book=3/8L/s) from a spring enclosing a depression of approximately 1.5m in diameter.
Water Source A
Currently, a plastic pipe inserted into the hillside collects a portion of the spring water. Water flows unrestricted out of this pipe and a small population living in the immediate vicinity depends on this source for their daily needs. Water Source B
note: (peter, stop 2)
Multiple springs are located at (2153m) in (orange notebook) District. The area is unpopulated and owned by the government. Water continuously seeps out of at least four springs.
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 22 of 32
Springs of Water Source B
The vegetation in the photo above shows the abundance of spring water in the immediate vicinity. A metal pipe is inserted into a spring on the hillside and has an estimated flow rate of (orange book). The slope grade is far steeper than that of water source A, and this must be taken it account during spring box design and construction. 7.3 Materials and Budget The survey materials consisted of two Brunton compasses and a fifty meter rope. 7.4 Recommendations The current water supply for western Muramba is grossly insufficient, providing per capita less than seven liters of water per day. In order to improve the situation, it is necessary to tackle both water supply and conservation issues. Thus, adding the new sources described above into the existing water infrastructure will help alleviate water shortages. However, adding new capacity alone is not a complete solution. Numerous leaky faucets and other infrastructure weaknesses such as exposed plastic piping threaten the viability of the system. As a result, new water sources must be completed in conjunction with faucet and infrastructure improvements. To ensure sustainability, the faucet and other water infrastructure improvements must be made in close consultation with Saidi, the water authority, and the administrators of Esecom, the secondary boarding school.
8.0 SUB-PROJECTS 8.1 Sand Filter 8.2 Water Tower Stand Pipe
Fall 2004
8.3 Pipeline Troubleshooting Peter Bosscher and Perry Cabot spent an afternoon troubleshooting various problems that they surmised after seeing that the delivery of water to the Muramba Parish and the Maria Goretti School had not significantly improved, despite the addition of a new source. The Parish water tank has several gate valves that can be used to redirect the flow of water. This system is not complicated, but future teams will need to have at least one person who fully understands how the tank is operated. After witnessing the water tank refill through the exit standpipe, we determined that below grade line which connected the elevated Parish tank to the buried concrete Goretti tank (approx. 5 meter away) was clogged. Innocent Kambanda led a team of workers into the evening using pipe wrenches (urufunguza) and hacksaws (scie à métaux) to open the pipe and remove the clog. Future workers should plan on screening the standpipe inside the Parish tank to prevent further clogs from occurring.
9.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 9.1 Travel, Lodging, and Project Contacts 9.2 Summary of Component Implementation 9.3 Final Budget 9.4 Lessons Learned and Future Evaluations
10.0 References Water for the World; “Maintaining Intakes: Technical Note No. RWS. 1.O.2; www.lifewater.org
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 24 of 32
Fall 2004
11.0 Appendix 11.1 Contacts Professor Peter Bosscher [email protected]
Student Team: Matt Bretl [email protected] Perry Cabot [email protected] Amelia Cosgrove [email protected] Andrew (Andy) Griggle [email protected] Andrew (Drew) Lockman [email protected] Audrey Miller [email protected] Tim Miller [email protected] Evan Parks [email protected]
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 25 of 32
11.2 Flow Rates
Collection Box
Pipe
Flow Rate (L/min)
Flow Rate (L/day)
Flow Rate (gal/day)
4.63 4.69 4.92 4.93 4.86
25219.78 25553.24 26842.11 26861.74 26493.51
6663.09 6751.19 7091.71 7096.89 6999.61
18.86
4.98
27159.76
7175.63
4.00 4.00 4.00
16.76 17.80 17.53
4.43 4.70 4.63
24134.08 25637.98 25244.70
6376.24 6773.58 6669.67
0.34 0.36
4.00 4.00
11.70 11.01
3.09 2.91
16842.11 15853.21
4449.70 4188.43
15.22
0.25
4.14
16.78
4.43
24167.47
6385.07
1.10 1.20 1.30
64.02 84.32 92.48
1.07 1.41 1.54
2.90 4.00 4.00
2.72 2.85 2.60
0.72 0.75 0.69
3913.78 4098.67 3737.02
1034.02 1082.87 987.32
2.10 2.20
19.86 19.42
0.33 0.32
4.00 4.00
12.08 12.36
3.19 3.27
17401.81 17796.09
4597.57 4701.74
Time (s)
Time (min)
Volume (L)
1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50
14.56 14.37 13.68 13.67 13.86
0.24 0.24 0.23 0.23 0.23
4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25
17.51 17.75 18.64 18.65 18.40
1.60
13.52
0.23
4.25
2.10 2.20 2.30
14.32 13.48 13.69
0.24 0.22 0.23
3.10 3.20
20.52 21.80
Run.Trial
Flow Rate (gal/min)
College Collection Box 1 length: 39.5" width: 39.5" height: 51" height of overflow: 31.5" max capacity: 805 L outflow pipe 3.5" OD 3" ID
Inflow Pipe 1
Average Inflow Pipe 2
Fall 2004
Collection Box
Pipe
Total
Run.Trial 2.30 2.40
Time (s) 17.87 22.45
Time (min) 0.30 0.37
Volume (L) 4.00 4.00
Flow Rate (L/min) 13.43 10.69
Flow Rate (gal/min) 3.55 2.82
Flow Rate (L/day) 19339.68 15394.21
Flow Rate (gal/day) 5109.56 4067.16
Average
45.77
0.76
3.84
8.10
2.14
11668.75
3082.89
24.89
6.57
35836.22
9467.96
Average
College Collection Box 2 length: 38" width: 38" height: 48" height of overflow: 34" height of outflow: 3.5" max capacity: 804.5 L
Inflow Pipe 1
1.10
288.61
4.81
4.00
0.83
0.22
1197.46
316.37
2.10
329.00
5.48
4.00
0.73
0.19
1050.46
277.53
308.81
5.15
4.00
0.78
0.21
1123.96
296.95
1.10 1.20 1.30
25.00 23.86 24.21
0.42 0.40 0.40
4.50 4.50 4.50
10.80 11.32 11.15
2.85 2.99 2.95
15552.00 16295.05 16059.48
4108.85 4305.17 4242.93
2.10 2.20
20.00 20.00
0.33 0.33
4.00 4.00
12.00 12.00
3.17 3.17
17280.00 17280.00
4565.39 4565.39
22.61
0.38
4.30
11.45
3.03
16493.31
4357.54
32.68 32.86 33.42
0.54 0.55 0.56
4.50 4.50 4.50
8.26 8.22 8.08
2.18 2.17 2.13
11897.18 11832.01 11633.75
3143.25 3126.03 3073.65
Average Inflow Pipe 2
Average Inflow Pipe 3
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
1.10 1.20 1.30
Page 27 of 32
Fall 2004
Collection Box
Pipe
Total
Run.Trial
Time (s)
Time (min)
Volume (L)
Average
32.99
0.55
4.50
Average
Flow Rate (L/min)
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Flow Rate (L/day)
Flow Rate (gal/day)
8.19
2.16
11787.65
3114.31
20.42
5.40
29404.92
7768.80
New College Source Outflow
1.10 1.20 1.30
15.61 16.02 15.68
0.26 0.27 0.26
1.00 1.00 1.00
3.84 3.75 3.83
1.02 0.99 1.01
5534.91 5393.26 5510.20
1462.33 1424.90 1455.80
2.10
364.12
6.07
20.00
3.30
0.87
4745.69
1253.81
3.68
0.97
5296.02
1399.21
Average Parish Collection Box 1 length: 26.25" width: 27" height: 40.25" overflow height 1: 32.25" overflow height 2: 31.5" overflow pipe 1 2" OD overflow pipe 2 2.25" OD outflow pipe 2" OD
Inflow Pipe 1
1.10
297.56
4.96
4.50
0.91
0.24
1306.63
345.21
2.10
67.34
1.12
1.00
0.89
0.24
1283.04
338.98
182.45
3.04
2.75
0.90
0.24
1294.83
342.10
15.46 23.87 22.09 21.58 16.96
0.26 0.40 0.37 0.36 0.28
4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50
17.46 11.31 12.22 12.51 15.92
4.61 2.99 3.23 3.31 4.21
25148.77 16288.23 17600.72 18016.68 22924.53
6644.33 4303.36 4650.13 4760.02 6056.68
Average Inflow Pipe 2
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
1.10 1.20 1.30 1.40 1.50
Page 28 of 32
Fall 2004
Collection Box
Pipe
Run.Trial 2.10 2.20 2.30
Time (s) 21.36 20.09 20.27
Time (min) 0.36 0.33 0.34
Volume (L) 4.50 4.50 4.50
Flow Rate (L/min) 12.64 13.44 13.32
Flow Rate (gal/min) 3.34 3.55 3.52
Flow Rate (L/day) 18202.25 19352.91 19181.06
Flow Rate (gal/day) 4809.05 5113.05 5067.65
Average
20.21
0.34
4.50
13.36
3.53
19238.00
5082.70
1.10 1.20 1.30
41.30 39.42 39.95
0.69 0.66 0.67
4.50 4.50 4.50
6.54 6.85 6.76
1.73 1.81 1.79
9414.04 9863.01 9732.17
2487.20 2605.82 2571.25
2.10
42.40
0.71
4.50
6.37
1.68
9169.81
2422.67
40.22
0.67
4.50
6.63
1.75
9544.76
2521.73
20.89
5.52
30089.39
7949.64
8.63
2.28
12433.64
3284.98
Inflow Pipe 3
Average Total
Average
Parish Collection Box 2 length: 23" width: 23" height: 41" outflow pipe 3" OD
Inflow Pipe 1 Inflow Pipe 2
Spring Box in Ravine outflow pipe 2.5" OD
Angle Box
Outflow Pipe
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
1.10
31.27
0.52
4.50
Page 29 of 32
Fall 2004
Collection Box Length: 18" Width: 19" Height: 19" outflow pipe 2" OD inflow pipe 2.5" OD inflow pipe height 7.5"
Pipe
Run.Trial
Inflow Pipe
1.10 1.20 1.30
Average
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Flow Rate (L/min)
Time (s)
Time (min)
Volume (L)
18.84 18.45 18.45
0.31 0.31 0.31
4.50 4.50 4.50
14.33 14.63 14.63
18.58
0.31
4.50
14.53
Flow Rate (gal/min)
Page 30 of 32
Flow Rate (L/day)
Flow Rate (gal/day)
3.79 3.87 3.87
20636.94 21073.17 21073.17
5452.30 5567.55 5567.55
3.84
20925.73
5528.59
Fall 2004
11.3 Cross Section Schematic
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 31 of 32
Fall 2004
11.4 Water Infrastructure Schematic
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved
Page 32 of 32
Related Documents
Muramba Phase I-2
May 2020 41
Muramba Phase Ii Final Report
May 2020 38
I2
November 2019 45
Muramba Phase Iii Final, Ewb-uw Madison
May 2020 33
I2 Technologies
July 2020 17