How different regional approaches to the network design result in key differences in burst event severity and failure vulnerability

Abstract

The pipe burst response of an innovative Dutch water distribution network is compared to a traditional looped North American network. Dutch networks focus on water quality and use smaller diameter pipes in branches. The branched network discharges much less water after a burst, which may reduce local flooding, traffic disruption, and product and energy loss. In addition, high velocities and transient pressures are shown to be much more localized in the branched Dutch network after a burst, reducing the risks associated with the intrusion of contaminants. However, despite improved water quality, less water loss, and more localized transients, the branched network cannot meet water demands downstream of the burst until the pipe is repaired, unlike a traditional looped network. Lastly, the Dutch design suggests a need for rethinking of needed fire flows in North America. For modern buildings that meet current design guidelines, the Dutch are content with much lower fire-flow requirements that provide the flexibility to improve water quality and reduce the consequences of pipe bursts, especially water loss.