Muramba Phase I-2

8/14/2019 Muramba Phase I-2

1/32

EWB PROJECT:MURAMBA, RWANDAPHASE I IMPLEMENTATION

Prepared by:

ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERSM1074 ENGINEERING CENTERS BUILDING

1550 Engineering Drive

MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706-1609


2/32

Fall 2004

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................... 41.1 Site Assessment ........................................................................................................ 41.2 Contacts..................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 Budget and Funding.................................................................................................. 41.4 Engineering Components Considered....................................................................... 4

2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT........................... 42.1 Professional/Student Chapters Involved ................................................................... 42.2 Assigning of Components......................................................................................... 5

3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................ 63.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion .............................................................................. 73.2 Implementation Process ............................................................................................ 8

3.2.1 Water Quality................................................................................................... 103.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 113.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 12

3.4.1 Water Collection .............................................................................................. 123.4.2 Water Conservation and Remediation ............................................................. 13

4.0 RIVER CROSSING.................................................................................................... 144.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 144.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 154.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 164.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 16

5.0 LANDSLIDE.............................................................................................................. 175.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 17

5.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 176.0 PLUMBING................................................................................................................ 186.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 186.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 18

6.2.1 Repairing and Replacing Leaky Fixtures......................................................... 186.2.2 Implementing a New Flushing System for Toilets....................................... 18

6.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 186.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 19

7.0 SECOND SOURCE.................................................................................................... 197.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 197.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 19

7.2.1 Survey Description........................................................................................... 207.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 237.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 23


3/32

Fall 2004

9.3 Final Budget............................................................................................................ 249.4 Lessons Learned and Future Evaluations ............................................................... 24

10.0 References................................................................................................................. 2411.0 Appendix................................................................................................................... 25

11.1 Contacts................................................................................................................. 2511.2 Flow Rates ............................................................................................................ 2611.3 Cross Section Schematic....................................................................................... 3111.4 Water Infrastructure Schematic ............................................................................ 32


4/32

Fall 2004

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

From July 15-31, 2004, a group of eight students, one professor, and one medical doctortraveled to Muramba to for the Phase I Implementation trip. UW-Madison ProfessorPeter Bosscher went on the July trip, as well as the March 2004 site assessment. Goalsfor the July trip were gathered from the Site Assessment Report,Assessing EngineeringSolutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report(www.ewb-usa.org) and fromBosschers expertise. Six projects were selected to complete in July 2004. They aredescribed in sections 2.0-7.0. However, when the group arrived to Muramba, moreprojects were added to the workload (section 8.0). Another EWB group plans to visitMuramba in January 2005, to install a rainwater catchment scheme to increase waterquantity.

1.1 Site Assessment

Please see the March 2004 Survey Trip at www.ewb-usa.org

1.2 ContactsContacts specific to the July 2004 trip are in Appendix 11.1Additional contacts are in Appendix 8.3Assessing 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 existingsource (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 includingpope clogs (8.3) and conservation issues (3.4.2) unfolded and were addressed.

2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT

2 1 P f i l/St d t Ch t I l d


5/32

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 Contact(s)3.0 Source Improvement Tim Miller [email protected]

Audrey Miller [email protected] River Crossing Andrew Lockman [email protected] Landslide Perry Cabot [email protected] Plumbing Amelia Cosgrove [email protected]

7.0 Second Source Evan Parks [email protected] Bretl [email protected]

8.0 Sub-Projects Peter Bosscher [email protected]


6/32

Fall 2004

3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT

To plan for source improvement, the UW Madison group gathered information from theMarch 2004 site assessment report Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba,Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report, Pete Bosscher, and Andrea Khosropour. The siteassessment report, which can be found at http://www.ewb-usa.org/explained the currentwater 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 surfacewater.

When walking to the second source, one comes upon 4 collection boxes. Further up thehill, there is a 1.25 PVC pipe collecting surface water. Innocent, the water systemmaintenance and repairman explained the water flowing into the four collection boxes arefrom an underground source. The only surface water collection observed was the 1.25PVC pipe sitting in a stream (Images 1 and 2). Images 1 and 2 show the only knownsource of contamination in the water system.

Image 1: Surface water collection


7/32

Fall 2004

3.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion

3.1.1 QuantityInnocent gathered a team of workers to tap a new water source. The new sourceincreased the quantity by 3.7 Liters per minute, or 5296 Liters per day. All Flow Rates inAppendix 11.2 Flow Rates.

3.1.2 Quality

To address the water quality problem, the team cut off the surface water supply collectionas pictured in Images 1 and 2. However, Louis, a maintenance repairman and Innocentsprotg, 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 systemcannot supply a sufficient amount of clean water to the 1,200 users.


8/32

Fall 2004

3.2 Implementation Process

Innocent was the driving force behind tapping the new source. With the availableresources, he is capable of tapping sources and maintaining the system. The EWB teamserves 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. Usingpictures, the process is explained.

A team of Rwandan workers were selected byInnocent and John Bosco. The men carried suppliesto the source and used picks to dig the site whereInnocent believed a seep would be found.

The med dug until they hit bedrock. Innocentexcavated the surface with a wire brush until he found

the seep.

The water collected from the seep would need to travelabout 9 feet in galvanized steel piping brought from theUnited States across a small drainage. Then the waterwould flow underground in PVC pipes and join with theCollege main source. Image 5 shows men digging a trenchto lay the PVC pipe.


9/32

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 steelpiping.

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 outsmall particles and the wellpoint was enclosedwith clay. Soil and rocks were piled on top ofthe wellpoint structure.

Image 9 shows the creek crossing. Amortar and stone wall was later built

around the pipe to prevent animalsfrom kicking the pipe. The top of thepicture is the source and the bottom isthe other side of the drainage. Thewater then flows into a PVC pipewhich is joined with the college


10/32

Fall 2004

3.2.1 Water Quality

To physically address the water quality issues, we devised and constructed a filtrationdevice to be placed in the collection box nearest to the Parish (called CM2 inAssessingEngineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report). We choose thiscollection box because it was the last point of entry for inflow and potential contaminantsbefore 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 inthe pipeline that are not easily remedied. Additionally, the filter screens large particlesand 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 couplingscomprised the filtration device, pictured below before and after installation.

As water flows through the well point, sediment will accumulate in the screenenshrouding 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 issufficient 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 stopcompletely, causing even greater water quantity shortfalls. Additionally, the sedimentthat 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


11/32

Fall 2004

3.3 Materials and Budget

Materials for the Source Improvement

Item Units Unit Cost Cost Vendor

Hose/Pipe Adaptor, brass 3/4f x 3/4m x 1/2f 2 1.89 3.78 Farm & FleetPipe, galvanized 1-1/4" x 48" 4 11.99 47.96 Farm & FleetCheck Valve, Brass, 1-1/4" 2 14.99 29.98 Farm & FleetSprayer Pipe Reducer Coupling, Poly 1-1/2" x1" 2 4.29 8.58 Farm & Fleet

Sprayer Hose Barb, 1-1/2" 2 1.59 3.18 Farm & FleetReducer Bushing, 1 x 3/4 2 1.49 2.98 Farm & FleetHose Barb, 1-1/2" Thread x 1-1/2" Shank 2 3.59 7.18 Farm & FleetNipple, Galvanized, 1-1/4 x 3 2 1.29 2.58 Farm & FleetCistern Pump, #3 1 55.99 55.99 Farm & FleetSteel Post Driver w/ Handle 1 12.99 12.99 Farm & FleetSprayer Pipe Reducer Coupling, Poly 1-1/2" x1-1/4" 3 4.29 12.87 Farm & FleetCheck Valve, In-Line, 1-1/4" x 1-1/2" 1 8.79 8.79 Farm & FleetFlex Coupling, PVC, 1-1/4" x 1-1/4" 2 1.85 3.7 Farm & FleetFlex Coupling, PVC, 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" 2 1.85 3.7 Farm & FleetDrive Coupling, 1-1/4" 4 7.29 29.16 Farm & FleetDrive Cap 2 6.99 13.98 Farm & FleetPipe Joint Compound w/ Teflon, 4 oz. 1 2.99 2.99 Farm & FleetFertilizer Solution Hose, 1-1/2" x 1" 4 1.39 5.56 Farm & Fleet

Well Point, Fiberglass 60 Gauze, 1-1/4" 2 39.99 79.98 Farm & FleetHose Barb, 1-1/4" Thread x 1-1/2" Shank 2 1.59 3.18 Farm & Fleet500 Ft Reload Twisted Gold Line Reel Refill 1 6.99 6.99 Farm & Fleet100 Ct. 21" Glo Orange Marking Flags 1 6.99 6.99 Farm & Fleet

Total 353.09

NoteNot all materials listed were used for the source improvement project. Some supplies

were purchased in Kigali, including PVC piping and assorted couplings. All remainingsupplies were left in Muramba for future use.

Inventory of Remaining Supplies


12/32

Fall 2004

Fernco coupler 1.25-1.25 1Galvanized iron coupler 3 1

Copper check valve 1.25 2Caulk gun 1Nipples 1.25 2Reducer coupling 1.50-1.00 1Reducer coupling 1.50-1.25 1PVC coupling 1.25-1.00 2Female hose adaptor 0.75-0.75 2Reducer coupling 1.00-0.75 1

Ball valve 2 2Male PVC coupling 2 2Non-collapsing hose Reinforced, 1.5 ~5 ft.Hose barb 1.50-1.25, 90 1Hose barb 1.25-2.00 1Fence post driver Weighted 1Marker flags 100

3.4 Recommendations

3.4.1 Water Collection

An assessment of Murambas water resource availability reveals that the current waterresources are still inadequate to meet the consumption needs of Muramba College and thesurrounding 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 whileconserving the water resources now being consumed. A comprehensive water budgetwould provide a reasonable estimate of how much water the community uses. Somefactors to consider may include the water usage of the College girls, the water usage forcooking, and seasonal consumption cycles. As mentioned inAssessing EngineeringSolutions 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 thesources that feed the collection boxes. A larger cross-sectional area of pipe would enablemore water to flow into the system. It is not feasible to expand the diameter of the buriedpipes because excavating the collection points would disrupt a stable agriculture above


13/32

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 pipedinto existing lines, thereby increasing the overall flow into the system. A possibledrawback to this solution is that over time, the screen enshrouding the well point maybecome clogged with particles, rendering the buried well point and line unusable. Abetter alternative may be to build spring boxes at the points of seepage. A well pointcould be used in conjunction with the spring box to filter large particulates. Theadvantage of building a spring box is that technicians will have easy access to the point ofcollection to perform routine maintenance.

Installing a roof catchment system may be the most viable solution in increasing thewater supply. As previously discussed in the assessment report, a gutter system could befitted to all school buildings to collect rainwater runoff during the wet season. A cisternor reservoir could be constructed at each building to store the water. The water collectedfrom the roofs may not be suitable for drinking but could be used for washing andcooking. Additionally, the reservoirs could be designed to incorporate a filtrationmechanism within the storage tank, providing sufficient filtration to render the water

drinkable. For more details, seeAssessing 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 notturn off at all. Designing and implementing a faucet that can be manufactured locally orobtained domestically will be critical in water conservation. It was observed that manyfaucets were left running unattended for long periods of time, needlessly drawing downthe amount of water in the storage tanks. A faucet designed with a gravity shutoff wouldensure that water would not be wasted. In essence, the user would have to lift the faucetto get water. After use, the faucet would fall and shutoff automatically.

In conjunction with an improved faucet design, wastewater remediation and runoffcollection may be another alternative to conserving non-potable water. Much water iswasted as a result of the leaky faucets and spigots. This water could be contained andredistributed to other areas facing a supply shortage. Alternatively, the wastewater couldbe used for irrigation to increase crop yield. A solar pasteurizer could be utilized to treatthis runoff as well as incoming flow.


14/32

Fall 2004

4.0 RIVER CROSSING

4.1 Problem Description

At their lowest elevations, the Muramba Parish and Muramba College water supply linescross the Rungo River, where they are supported by five columns made of stone andconcrete (Image 12). Here the Rungo River merges with a small tributary, and largeboulders 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, andthreatened its structural integrity (Image 13). Both supply lines are cemented directly tothe column, and if it were to topple they would be severed and the water supply to thevillage would be cut off. Due to these serious consequences the column needed to bereconstructed and strengthened to ensure the water lines continue to serve thecommunity.

A number of methods were investigated to determine how to best protect the columnfrom future erosion, including reducing energy by constructing low-head weirs and waterdeflection techniques such as stone-filled revetments and gabions, and soil-coveredriprap, among others. Following a site review and an assessment of the availableresources we decided the optimal solution was to create a dry-stone wall upstream anddownstream of the support column, after the base of the support column had beenreconstructed. The project required five days work with a maximum of twenty laborers aday 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.


15/32

Fall 2004

Image 13: Erosion has partially removed the foundation of a support column.


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 withgathering 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 supportcolumn so the area could be excavated. This was accomplished by constructing achannel guide made of rocks and soil which moved the flow away from the column, andallowed the surrounding area to be cleared of vegetation, soil, and small boulders. Thearea was partially dried and large boulders were cemented in place at the base of thefoundation. Then the column was rebuilt and expanded in the upstream direction by 2-3feet while maintaining form similar to the original structure. Next, a large dry-rock wallwas built upstream and downstream from the column for a length of about two to threetimes the maximum channel width. Once the column and riverbank were armored, thelarge boulders which had originally directed the river flow into the support column were


16/32

Fall 2004

Image 14: View of strengthened support column, constructed dry-rock walls, and theboulders moved to the right bank


This project required 20 laborers at $1.50/day, and 2 foremen at $6.00/day. All wageswere paid at the end of the work period. Armoring the foundation required ___ bags ofcement and collecting about 10 drums of sand at approximately $1.00/barrel. The laborcrew used the shovels that were available and a few items purchased in Kigali such asshovels, sledge hammers, picks, and pry bars.

4.4 Recommendations

The structural stability of the rock wall and support column must be checked during eachvisit to Muramba. Because the project was completed during the dry season and withonly minor knowledge of wet season conditions, there remains a possibility that a largeflood event could remove the rip-rap and weaken the supporting column Also the


17/32

Fall 2004

the laborers performed was a teaching opportunity embraced the foremen, and thelaborers learned much during the project. Further, the participation of students from the

vocational school indicated the region has an abundance of well skilled masons andlaborers that should be utilized in future projects.

5.0 LANDSLIDE

5.1 Problem DescriptionThe primary water delivery lines for the Muramba Parish and the College of Murambaare buried approximately 2.5 meters below grade in the clay soils that characterize muchof the Rwandan landscape. These lines lay beneath the trail that links the project site tothe mountain and hillside seeps where the community collects its water. For much of thedistance of the main lines, there sections (~10 -15 m) where slopes are at 90% or greaterand soil cohesiveness is the only force preventing further degradation of the pipetrenches. Frequent use of the community trails and ground-leveling for agricultural plotshas resulted in the exposure of water lines in various locations. One such location haddegraded to the point of instability and a landslide occurred, exposing approximately 10m of pipe.


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, InnocentNsabiyaremye, Peter Ntirubabara, Jean-Baptiste Mubenguka, Jean-DamaceneNdajambaje, Innocent Harerimana, and Joseph Ntirenganya. Before we began, weinitiated a goat relocation program, which proved to be one of the more complicatedtasks.

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 withthem. Secondly, we surrounded the pipe with looser soil to provide a modicum ofbedding. Next, we located a cache of bricks (itafari) that had been abandoned by the landuser whose original excavation had caused the landslide. We were able to use thesebricks to construct a concave retaining wall that stabilized the hillslope and preventedfurther degradation. Finally, we applied water (amazi) in order to increase the moisture


18/32


19/32

Fall 2004

6.4 Recommendations

The largest problem of water conservation in Muramba seems to come less from leakingtaps than from taps that have been left open. Because the water supply is capricious, tapsthat are not working are left open over buckets. When the water begins to run, thebuckets overflow, wasting water. Conservation education efforts are being made, but apassive 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 iseasier 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-droppedshaped. The taps are also expensive (~$25 US dollars/tap).

It is recommended that future teams concentrate their efforts on designing a gravityclosing faucet that could be manufactured locally. A locally manufactured gravityclosing faucet would not only conserve water, but also allow people to replace andmaintain plumbing fixtures themselves, create local jobs, and possibly even generaterevenue 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 forconsumption is of questionable quality. The low quantity of water is the major inhibitorin Muramba for improvement in the areas of education, health care, and economicdevelopment. A gravity fed supply of approximately 2/3 L/s provides water for over9,000 people living on the western side of Muramba, including a secondary boardingschool of 400 students. This water supply is grossly inadequate, and the infrastructuresupplying the water contains leaks and exposed pipes.


During the summer 2004 implementation trip, the EWB-UW team conducted a survey ofthe water system from the Muramba Parish church to the Kigali/Gisinyi road. The teamintended to use a theodolite and GPS to gather survey data but the equipment was lost in


20/32

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. Thegeneral topography of the survey route consists of two U-shaped profiles. This can beviewed from the appendix 11.3. The following describes each segment of the profilestarting 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) anddescends 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 Esecomand 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 villagetaps (2026m; view photo above), while the second continues towards the relative lowpoint of the valve box. Plastic pipe is exposed to the surface and foot traffic at twolocations just before the relative low point.

Second Segment

The second survey segment begins at the valve box (1963m) and ascends to the Esecomcollection box (2022m) and Esecom reservoir. This distance covers 676m.


21/32

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 tothe Kigali/Gisinyi road. When the water reaches the Esecom collection box, it is dividedbetween the Esecom school and the Esecom reservoir. The Esecom school line feedsthree 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 thedirection of the Kigali/Gisinyi road to supply taps, while two others run in the directionof the parish.


22/32


23/32

Springs of Water Source B

The vegetation in the photo above shows the abundance of spring water in the immediatevicinity. A metal pipe is inserted into a spring on the hillside and has an estimated flowrate of (orange book). The slope grade is far steeper than that of water source A, and thismust be taken it account during spring box design and construction.


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 percapita 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 newsources described above into the existing water infrastructure will help alleviate watershortages. However, adding new capacity alone is not a complete solution. Numerousleaky faucets and other infrastructure weaknesses such as exposed plastic piping threatenthe viability of the system. As a result, new water sources must be completed inconjunction with faucet and infrastructure improvements. To ensure sustainability, thefaucet and other water infrastructure improvements must be made in close consultationwith Saidi, the water authority, and the administrators of Esecom, the secondary boardingschool.


24/32

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 MariaGoretti School had not significantly improved, despite the addition of a new source. TheParish 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 personwho fully understands how the tank is operated.

After witnessing the water tank refill through the exit standpipe, we determined thatbelow 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 workersinto the evening using pipe wrenches (urufunguza) and hacksaws (scie mtaux) to openthe pipe and remove the clog. Future workers should plan on screening the standpipeinside 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


25/32

Fall 2004

11.0 Appendix

11.1 Contacts

Professor Peter Bosscher [email protected]

Student Team:

Matt Bretl [email protected] Cabot [email protected] Cosgrove [email protected] (Andy) Griggle [email protected] (Drew) Lockman [email protected] Miller [email protected] Miller [email protected] Parks [email protected]


26/32

11.2 Flow Rates

Collection Box Pipe Run.TrialTime(s)

Time(min)

Volume(L)

FlowRate

(L/min)

FlowRate

(gal/min)

FlowRate

(L/day)

FlowRate

(gal/day)

College Collection Box1

length: 39.5"

Inflow Pipe

1 1.10 14.56 0.24 4.25 17.51 4.63 25219.78 6663.09width: 39.5" 1.20 14.37 0.24 4.25 17.75 4.69 25553.24 6751.19

height: 51" 1.30 13.68 0.23 4.25 18.64 4.92 26842.11 7091.71

height of overflow: 31.5" 1.40 13.67 0.23 4.25 18.65 4.93 26861.74 7096.89

max capacity: 805 L 1.50 13.86 0.23 4.25 18.40 4.86 26493.51 6999.61outflow pipe 3.5" OD 3"ID 1.60 13.52 0.23 4.25 18.86 4.98 27159.76 7175.63

2.10 14.32 0.24 4.00 16.76 4.43 24134.08 6376.24

2.20 13.48 0.22 4.00 17.80 4.70 25637.98 6773.58

2.30 13.69 0.23 4.00 17.53 4.63 25244.70 6669.67

3.10 20.52 0.34 4.00 11.70 3.09 16842.11 4449.70

3.20 21.80 0.36 4.00 11.01 2.91 15853.21 4188.43

Average 15.22 0.25 4.14 16.78 4.43 24167.47 6385.07

Inflow Pipe2 1.10 64.02 1.07 2.90 2.72 0.72 3913.78 1034.02

1.20 84.32 1.41 4.00 2.85 0.75 4098.67 1082.87

1.30 92.48 1.54 4.00 2.60 0.69 3737.02 987.32

2.10 19.86 0.33 4.00 12.08 3.19 17401.81 4597.57

2.20 19.42 0.32 4.00 12.36 3.27 17796.09 4701.74

F ll 2004


27/32

Fall 2004

Engineers Without Borders USA. All Rights Reserved Page 27 of 32

Collection Box Pipe Run.Trial Time(s) Time(min) Volume(L)

Flow

Rate(L/min)

Flow

Rate(gal/min)

Flow

Rate(L/day)

Flow

Rate(gal/day)

2.30 17.87 0.30 4.00 13.43 3.55 19339.68 5109.56

2.40 22.45 0.37 4.00 10.69 2.82 15394.21 4067.16

Average 45.77 0.76 3.84 8.10 2.14 11668.75 3082.89

Total Average 24.89 6.57 35836.22 9467.96

College Collection Box2

length: 38"Inflow Pipe1 1.10 288.61 4.81 4.00 0.83 0.22 1197.46 316.37

width: 38"

height: 48" 2.10 329.00 5.48 4.00 0.73 0.19 1050.46 277.53

height of overflow: 34"

height of outflow: 3.5" Average 308.81 5.15 4.00 0.78 0.21 1123.96 296.95

max capacity: 804.5 LInflow Pipe2 1.10 25.00 0.42 4.50 10.80 2.85 15552.00 4108.85

1.20 23.86 0.40 4.50 11.32 2.99 16295.05 4305.17

1.30 24.21 0.40 4.50 11.15 2.95 16059.48 4242.93

2.10 20.00 0.33 4.00 12.00 3.17 17280.00 4565.39

2.20 20.00 0.33 4.00 12.00 3.17 17280.00 4565.39

Average 22.61 0.38 4.30 11.45 3.03 16493.31 4357.54

Inflow Pipe3 1.10 32.68 0.54 4.50 8.26 2.18 11897.18 3143.25

1.20 32.86 0.55 4.50 8.22 2.17 11832.01 3126.03

1.30 33.42 0.56 4.50 8.08 2.13 11633.75 3073.65

Fall 2004


28/32

Fall 2004



Flow

Rate(L/min)

Flow

Rate(gal/min)

Flow

Rate(L/day)

Flow

Rate(gal/day)

Average 32.99 0.55 4.50 8.19 2.16 11787.65 3114.31

Total Average 20.42 5.40 29404.92 7768.80

New College Source

Outflow 1.10 15.61 0.26 1.00 3.84 1.02 5534.91 1462.331.20 16.02 0.27 1.00 3.75 0.99 5393.26 1424.90

1.30 15.68 0.26 1.00 3.83 1.01 5510.20 1455.80

2.10 364.12 6.07 20.00 3.30 0.87 4745.69 1253.81

Average 3.68 0.97 5296.02 1399.21

Parish Collection Box 1

length: 26.25"width: 27"

height: 40.25"Inflow Pipe1 1.10 297.56 4.96 4.50 0.91 0.24 1306.63 345.21

overflow height 1: 32.25"

overflow height 2: 31.5" 2.10 67.34 1.12 1.00 0.89 0.24 1283.04 338.98

overflow pipe 1 2" OD

overflow pipe 2 2.25" OD Average 182.45 3.04 2.75 0.90 0.24 1294.83 342.10

outflow pipe 2" OD

Inflow Pipe2 1.10 15.46 0.26 4.50 17.46 4.61 25148.77 6644.33

1.20 23.87 0.40 4.50 11.31 2.99 16288.23 4303.36

1.30 22.09 0.37 4.50 12.22 3.23 17600.72 4650.13

1.40 21.58 0.36 4.50 12.51 3.31 18016.68 4760.02

1.50 16.96 0.28 4.50 15.92 4.21 22924.53 6056.68

Fall 2004


29/32

Fall 2004



Flow

Rate(L/min)

Flow

Rate(gal/min)

Flow

Rate(L/day)

Flow

Rate(gal/day)

2.10 21.36 0.36 4.50 12.64 3.34 18202.25 4809.05

2.20 20.09 0.33 4.50 13.44 3.55 19352.91 5113.05

2.30 20.27 0.34 4.50 13.32 3.52 19181.06 5067.65

Average 20.21 0.34 4.50 13.36 3.53 19238.00 5082.70

Inflow Pipe

3 1.10 41.30 0.69 4.50 6.54 1.73 9414.04 2487.201.20 39.42 0.66 4.50 6.85 1.81 9863.01 2605.82

1.30 39.95 0.67 4.50 6.76 1.79 9732.17 2571.25

2.10 42.40 0.71 4.50 6.37 1.68 9169.81 2422.67

Average 40.22 0.67 4.50 6.63 1.75 9544.76 2521.73

Total Average 20.89 5.52 30089.39 7949.64

Parish Collection Box 2

length: 23"

width: 23"Inflow Pipe1

height: 41"

outflow pipe 3" ODInflow Pipe2

Spring Box in Ravine

outflow pipe 2.5" OD

Angle BoxOutflowPipe 1.10 31.27 0.52 4.50 8.63 2.28 12433.64 3284.98

Fall 2004


30/32

Fall 2004



Flow

Rate(L/min)

Flow

Rate(gal/min)

Flow

Rate(L/day)

Flow

Rate(gal/day)

Length: 18"

Width: 19"

Height: 19" Inflow Pipe 1.10 18.84 0.31 4.50 14.33 3.79 20636.94 5452.30

outflow pipe 2" OD 1.20 18.45 0.31 4.50 14.63 3.87 21073.17 5567.55

inflow pipe 2.5" OD 1.30 18.45 0.31 4.50 14.63 3.87 21073.17 5567.55

inflow pipe height 7.5"

Average 18.58 0.31 4.50 14.53 3.84 20925.73 5528.59

Fall 2004


31/32


11.3 Cross Section Schematic

Fall 2004


32/32


11.4 Water Infrastructure Schematic

Documents

Muramba Phase I-2