We're currently working on developing an MSX model for Chlorine Decay that can account for wall decay as a factor of Biofilm growth (thus removing the need to specify wall decay for specific pipes throughout the network).
Unfortunately the equation for this relies on the mass transfer coefficient, which is dependent on the type of flow, as explained here: https://docs.bentley.com/LiveContent/web/Bentley%20WaterGEMS%20SS6-v1/en/GUID-D7D70292-50F6-4066-A30E-3B98BBB2BF7B.html.
This is built into the WaterGEMS standard pipe wall reaction calculations, however I need to know whether we can reference this coefficient in MSX, does anyone know whether this is possible? My understanding is that EPANET is capable of this so I assume WaterGEMS is capable as well, I just don’t know how.
For anyone wondering, the equations for Bulk decay are very simple. Below is a copy of what we use currently (no wall decay):
The Wall Decay equations are derived as follows (A&B are constants to be determined by trial and error, kw is what we need from WaterGEMS)
It seems that this is possible to do with MSX using the "TERMS" feature.
Terms can be defined to make writing the various water quality equations easier, by breaking equations up into manageable pieces.
One of the benefits of this feature is that one is able to use various pre-defined variables such as D for pipe diameter, Q for flow and Re for Reynolds number.
The MSX user guide provides the following example for calculating a mass transfer coefficient.
You can then use this value Kf directly in your reaction formulae.
I'm not sure if the example above is directly portable to your case (i.e., without alteration), however, you should be able to do what you need. I encourage you to grab a copy of the EPANET MSX user manual (v1.1) if you don't already have it. WaterGEMS is running a version of MSX that is pretty close to the original US EPA version and thus the vast majority of the help content there should be directly applicable to WaterGEMS also.
I hope this helps.
Ryan, what kind of real world system are you dealing with? For pretty much any water distribution system, you never get into laminar flow. Plus with bends, partly open valves, crosses, tee, etc., you may still be in turbulent flow at low Reynolds numbers.
Bulk reaction rates are usually higher than wall reactions and if wall reactions are that high, it may be that. pipes are very rough and turbulent.
And there is so much uncertainty in wall reaction rates to start with.
What is the practical use case where this really matters?
We're attempting to model Chlorine Decay for the water reticulation network of a town of over 50,000 people and 750 km of water mains.
Certainly, when chlorine residuals and dissolved organic compounds are high Bulk decay far outstrips wall decay. But when the water reaches the outer parts of the system, where the flows overnight are negligible (laminar) and the chlorine residual is below 0.5mg/L Biofilm growth starts to occur.
This Biofilm growth consumes and lowers chlorine, which can lead to more biofilm growth, which leads to faster consumption of chlorine and so forth.
These outer areas with low water flows, low chlorine and biofilm growth are our highest risk areas. We would like to be able to be able to account for that biofilm growth in the Chlorine decay model to provide indicative results that are at least somewhat reasonably reliable.
It would also be great if pipe material and age were terms that could also be referenced in MSX, but you're right about the uncertainty in wall reaction rates for these variables so for the moment our primary concern is Biofilms.
A good article outlining a similar process to what we're attempting can be found here: https://watersource.awa.asn.au/business/assets-and-operations/cost-effective-chlorination-strategies-for-drinking-water/
Re: "It would also be great if pipe material and age were terms that could also be referenced in MSX,"
Pipe material is not possible right now, but Age is. You could do this by modeling age as a species that does not grow or decay.
[SPECIES]; AgeBULK Age MG
[PIPES]RATE Age 1.0
[TANKS];AgeRATE Age 1.0
[QUALITY]GLOBAL Age 24.0
(The last part is just if you want to use an initial age... you can do that globally or by element).
The units are just a label and can be ignored, especially if the purpose is just to calculate some other dependent value.
In my test model this seems to have the desired outcome.
Hope this helps.
Ryan, it's admirable to try to apply MSX to your situation but I prefer to approach things incrementally. I believe it was Einstein who said, "A model should be as simple as possible but no simpler." That applies here.
Before I would even start modeling, I would collect tons of field Cl data (with corresponding demands and boundary conditions) and analyze it to determine the nature of the problem and range of solutions. I assume you've done this.
Then I would ensure that my EPS model is very well calibrated. If it's not almost perfect, then why bother with something like MSX?
Then I would try to model my chlorine data using the standard WaterGEMS constituent model (not MSX) by adjusting my wall decay rates (increasing them in areas where flows are very low). This may be good enough for what you need and it is much easier than MSX.
If you are certain that everything in your model is correct, except that the WaterGEMS constituent model is not adequate, only then would I take Wayne's advice and dive into MSX.
I'm aware of Fisher's work and its' quite good.
If you would like to discuss more off line, send me an email and we can call (email@example.com).
I'll leave you with one more famous saying. Mathematician George Box once said something like, "All models are wrong. Some are useful anyway."
Firstly I would like to start by saying I’m aware of the limitations of Chlorine Decay Modelling and I understand it's questionable whether this process is worth the effort given the limitations of the model.
An easier method would be to simply;
I agree with the benefits of tons of field Cl field data, we don't have a lot but we do have a reasonable amount.
We will be re-building our EPS model in the near future, in order to improve our calibration of this we’ve installed 20 pressure loggers across the system in addition to all the existing pressure and flow loggers.
Up to the comment on using the constituent model I agree with everything. But I have to argue strongly against using the WaterGEMS constituent model. We have used this previously and it is incredibly inaccurate. If you’re aware of Fishers work you’ll understand exactly how inaccurate first order decay is for networks with several day’s water age and multiple chlorine boosting stations. I would argue that it can be dangerous to use this because if someone were to use that method and think that it has some degree of accuracy; it could potentially lead to decisions being made that may have significant consequences.
I like your modeling Quote from George Box, and that’s exactly what I’m trying to achieve.. A useful Chlorine decay model.
As a side note:
While many reticulation networks have limited continuous monitoring for pressure, flow and chlorine, as the years go by, the amount of monitoring that occurs across Australia is increasing. Additionally academics are constantly researching and developing new and improved equations to represent the way chemicals interact throughout these systems. With these developments, in conjunction with continual improvements in computer processing power, it's only a matter of time before everything necessary to run accurate and reliable chlorine decay models exists... and all we would need then is the software to do so :)
The above solution is now included as a wiki article as below;
How to include result fields or pre-defined parameters in Multi Species Extension (MSX) for analysis?
Bentley Technical Support