SYSTEM ANALYSIS & PRELIMINARY DESIGN

Given values:
Population = 200 residents.
Domestic use = 150 L/person/day.
Peak hour factor = 3.0.
Simultaneous use factor = 0.6.
Fire protection requirement = 30 L/s for 30 min.
Cooling tower makeup (if applicable) = 5 L/s average.
DN = 100 mm (chosen).
Pipe roughness and friction factor for head-loss estimation in Part 1b: use f = 0.02
(assignment instruction).
Minor loss coefficient K_total = 8.
Water: ρ = 1000 kg/m³, g = 9.81 m/s².
Floor height = 3.5 m → elevation of 8th floor = 8 × 3.5 m = 28.0 m
above ground.
Required minimum pressure at fixture = 150 kPa.
Municipal supply at ground = 250 kPa (gage).

1a) Peak-hour water demand (L/s)

Average daily domestic consumption:
150 L/person/day × 200 people = 30,000 L/day

Average flow rate (over 24 h):

30000
Q avg = =0.34722 L / S
86400
Peak domestic flow using peak and simultaneous factors:
Q peak , dom =Q avg ∗( peak h our factor )∗( simultaneous use factor )
=0.34722∗3∗0.6=0.625 L/S
Total peak system demand (domestic + cooling) (L/s):
Q peak , total = 0.625+5=5.625 L / s
Fire flow (separate) and worst-case simultaneous:
Fire requirement = 30 L/s for 30 minutes.

Worst-case simultaneous (peak domestic + fire):

Q worst =5.625+30=35.625 L / s .
Summary

 Peak domestic demand (after peak & simultaneous factors): 0.6250 L/s.
 Peak system demand (domestic + cooling): 5.6250 L/s.
 Fire flow requirement: 30.000 L/s (30 minutes).
 Worst-case simultaneous flow (domestic + fire): 35.6250 L/s
1(b) Minimum required pump discharge pressure to guarantee 150 kPa at 8th-floor
fixtures

Convert required fixture pressure to head (m):

Required pressure = 150 kPa = 150,000 Pa.
150000 150000
h req = = =15.2905 m.
pg 1000∗9.81

Static elevation head to 8th floor (m):

Floor height = 3.5 m (floor to floor). Elevation to 8th floor = 8 × 3.5 = 28.000 m.

1(c) Velocity in DN100 at peak flow (used for head-loss estimates):

DN=0.100 m
2
π (0.100) 2
A= =0.00785 m
4
Q = 5.625 L/s = 0.005625 m³/s.
V = Q/A = 0.005625/0.0078539 = 0.7162 m/s.

1(d) Major (friction) head loss using Darcy–Weisbach with f = 0.02

2
LV
Darcy–Weisbach: hf = f
D ∗2 g
Given f = 0.02, L = 80 m, D = 0.100 m, V = 0.71619867 m/s, g = 9.81 m/s²:
2 2
V (0.71612)
kinetic term: = = 0.026137 m
2 g 2 ∗ 9.81
Numerically V2 = 0.71622 =0.512966 m 2 / s2
2
V /2 g =0.512966/(2∗9.81)=0.512966/19.62= 0.026137304666 m .

80
hf =0.02× × 0.026137304666
0.100
=0.02×800×0.026137304666 = 0.418301 m.

Minor losses (fittings, valves):

Minor-head coefficient K tot = 8 (assignment). Minor loss head:
2
V
h m = Ktot 8×0.026137304666=0.209151 m
2g

Convert required head to pressure (gage, kPa):

P = ρgH = 1000×9.81×43.917972=430835.309 Pa=430.835 kPa(gage).

Interpretation: The pump must be able to deliver ≈ 43.92 m of head at the building
peak flow (5.625 L/s) so that 8th-floor fixtures see ≥150 kPa. The municipal supply at
ground is 250 kPa (gage); that means the pump must provide a net boost if tied to
municipal suction
Pump option check, energy consumption and costs

 Pump A: H_max = 40 m; Q_max = 15 L/s; electrical rating = 8 kW; cost = QR

11,000; efficiency η = 70% (0.70).
 Pump B: H_max = 50 m; Q_max = 12 L/s; electrical rating = 10 kW; cost = QR
16,500; efficiency η = 75% (0.75).
 Pump C: H_max = 60 m; Q_max = 10 L/s; electrical rating = 12 kW; cost = QR
22,000; efficiency η = 78% (0.78).

Feasibility

Required design flow = 5.625 L/s and required head ≈ 43.918 m.

 Pump A: H_max = 40 m < 43.918 m ⇒ CANNOT meet required head →

infeasible.
 Pump B: H_max = 50 m ≥ 43.918 m and Q_max = 12 L/s ≥ 5.625 L/s ⇒
FEASIBLE.
 Pump C: H_max = 60 m ≥ 43.918 m but Q_max = 10 L/s ≥ 5.625 L/s ⇒
FEASIBLE.

Hydraulic power at design conditions

Hydraulic power (W):

P h yd =ρgQH
P h yd =1000×9.81×0.005625×43.917972=2423.4486147 W=2.423449 kW

Electrical input power (kW) for each pump:

Pelec = ❑
η

· Pump A (η = 0.70): Pelec ,A=2.423449/0.70=3.462069 kW.

· Pump B (η = 0.75): Pelec ,B=2.423449/0.75=3.231265 kW.

· Pump C (η = 0.78): Pelec ,C=2.423449/0.78=3.106985 kW.

Daily and annual energy consumption (pump runs 8 h/day on average):

Daily energy (kWh/day) = (kW)×8 h. Annual energy = daily × 365.

· Pump A: daily = 3.462069 × 8 = 27.696556 kWh/day; annual = 27.696556 × 365 =

10,109.243 kWh/yr.
· Pump B: daily = 3.231265 × 8 = 25.850120 kWh/day; annual = 25.850120 × 365 =
9,435.293 kWh/yr.
· Pump C: daily = 3.106985 × 8 = 24.855883 kWh/day; annual = 24.855883 × 365 =
9,072.397 kWh/yr.
Annual energy cost and 20-year energy cost
Electricity price = QR 0.08 / kWh (assignment). 20-yr energy cost = annual cost × 20.
Pump A: annual cost = 10,109.243 × 0.08 = QR 808.739; 20-yr = 808.739 × 20 = QR
16,174.79.
Pump B: annual cost = 9,435.293 × 0.08 = QR 754.823; 20-yr = 754.823 × 20 = QR
15,096.47.
Pump C: annual cost = 9,072.397 × 0.08 = QR 725.792; 20-yr = 725.792 × 20 = QR
14,515.84.

Summary table

Elec
Energy/ Annual 20-yr Pump
H_max Q_max Feasible input at Energy/yr
Pump day energy energy capital cost
(m) (L/s) for design? design (kWh)
(kWh) cost (QR) cost (QR) (QR)
(kW)
No
A 40 15 (H_max < 3.46207 27.69656 10,109.24 808.74 16,174.79 11,000
43.918 m)
B 50 12 Yes 3.23126 25.85012 9,435.29 754.82 15,096.47 16,500
C 60 10 Yes 3.10699 24.85588 9,072.40 725.79 14,515.8 22,00

Pump A is infeasible because its maximum head (40 m) is less than the required
~43.918 m at the design flow; therefore Pump A cannot guarantee the QCS-required
150 kPa at the top floor under the assumed direct-pump configuration. Pump A could
only be used if a roof tank / gravity system or other arrangement reduces pump head
requirement.
Pumps B and C are both feasible. At the design operating point (H ≈ 43.92 m, Q =
5.625 L/s) Pump B requires 3.231 kW electrical input while Pump C needs 3.107 kW;
over 20 years Pump C uses slightly less energy but has a higher capital cost. Use life-
cycle comparison (Parts 2 & 5) to choose the best combination of pump + pipe
material.
Part 2 — Pipe Material Selection & Optimization
Pipe internal diameter (DN) = 100 mm = 0.100 m .
Peak system flow (domestic + cooling) = 5.625 L/s = 0.005625 m³/s ρ = 1000 kg/m³,
μ = 1.0×10⁻³ Pa·s (20°C).
Riser length (main riser) = L = 80 m .
Minor loss coefficient (total for fittings, entrances, valves) = K_total = 8.
Use Swamee–Jain explicit formula to estimate friction factor from ε, D and Re
(suitable for turbulent fully-developed flow).
Velocity limits to check against QCS: 0.5 ≤ V ≤ 3.0 m/s.

2(a) Calculations for each material (DN100, Q = 5.625 L/s)

Preliminaries (common to all materials)

2 2
π D π (0.100) 2
Cross-sectional area, A = = =0.00785397 m
4 4
Velocity, V = Q/A = 0.005625/0.00785398=0.71620 m/s
2 2
V 0.71620
Kinetic head term for minor losses: = = 0.026137 m .
2 g 2× 9.81
2
V
→ Minor loss head h m = Ktot =8 ×0.026137=0.20910 m
2g
Required fixture pressure head at top floor:
150000 Pa
h req = =15.292 m . ( QCS minimum )
1000 × 9.81
Elevation to 8th floor: helev = 8×3.5 = 28.0 m

Materials, roughness & costs

Galvanized iron: ε = 0.15 mm = 0.00015 m; cost = QR 90/m (DN100).

UPVC: ε = 0.0015 mm = 0.0000015 m; cost = QR 125/m (DN100).
HDPE: ε = 0.0015 mm = 0.0000015 m; cost = QR 140/m (DN100).
Stainless steel: ε = 0.002 mm = 0.0000020 m; cost = QR 180/m (DN100).

Reynolds number (same for all materials)

ρVD 1000 × 0.71620 × 0.100

Re = = =71620
μ 1 × 10
−3

This is turbulent flow (Re >> 4000).

Friction factor (Swamee–Jain) and major head loss for L = 80 m

Swamee–Jain formula
0.25
f= 2
ε 5.74
[ log 10 ( + 0.9 ]
3.7 D Re

I computed f and the major head loss numerically for each material:
 Material ε (m) f (Swamee–Jain) Major head loss hfh_fhf (m)
Galvanized iron 0.000150 0.02462 0.5149 m
UPVC 0.0000015 0.01925 0.4027 m
HDPE 0.0000015 0.01925 0.4027 m
Stainless steel 0.0000020 0.01928 0.4032 m

Interpretation: Galvanized has 0.11 m more head loss over 80 m than UPVC/HDPE (≈
0.115-0.112 m difference). This is small in absolute terms for the riser but matters
when multiplied by pump energy over time at large scale.

Impact on required pump head (H_pump required at ground to guarantee 150 kPa at
8th floor)

Computing H pump req = h elev + h f + h m + h req

Material h_f (m) h_m (m) H_pump_req (m)

Galvanized 0.5149 0.2091 44.0160 m
UPVC 0.4027 0.2091 43.9038 m
HDPE 0.4027 0.2091 43.9038 m
Stainless 0.4032 0.2091 43.9043 m
Summary conclusions
 Velocity in DN100 at peak flow: 0.7162 m/s — within QCS (0.5–3 m/s).
 Friction factors are lowest for UPVC/HDPE/Stainless (very similar), highest for
galvanized.
 The difference in required pump head from best (UPVC/HDPE) to worst
(galvanized) is only ~0.112 m; hydraulic impact is modest for this riser length
and flow but it does affect energy use over the life of the system.

2(b) — Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (Initial pipe + pump; 20-yr energy)

Pump data

Pump A: H_max = 40 m, Q_max = 15 L/s, cost = QR 11,000, eff = 70%

Pump B: H_max = 50 m, Q_max = 12 L/s, cost = QR 16,500, eff = 75%
Pump C: H_max = 60 m, Q_max = 10 L/s, cost = QR 22,000, eff = 78%
 Annual
Initial Pump Initial Annual
Pum Feasible energy 20-yr energy Life-cycle total
Material pipe cost cost total energy cost
p ? (kWh/yr cost (QR) (QR)
(QR) (QR) (QR) (QR/yr)
)
No
(H_max
Galvaniz
A 40 m < 7,200 11,000 18,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
ed
44.016
m)
Galvaniz
B Yes 7,200 16,500 23,700 9,456.4 QR 756.51 QR 15,130.17 QR 38,830.17
ed
Galvaniz
C Yes 7,200 22,000 29,200 9,090.2 QR 727.41 QR 14,548.25 QR 43,748.25
ed
No
(H_max
UPVC A 40 m < 10,000 11,000 21,000 N/A N/A N/A N/A
43.904
m)
UPVC B Yes 10,000 16,500 26,500 9,432.3 QR 754.58 QR 15,091.60 QR 41,591.60
UPVC C Yes 10,000 22,000 32,000 9,069.5 QR 725.56 QR 14,511.16 QR 46,511.16
HDPE A No 11,200 11,000 22,200 N/A N/A N/A N/A
HDPE B Yes 11,200 16,500 27,700 9,432.3 QR 754.58 QR 15,091.60 QR 42,791.60
HDPE C Yes 11,200 22,000 33,200 9,069.5 QR 725.56 QR 14,511.16 QR 47,711.16
Stainless A No 14,400 11,000 25,400 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Stainless B Yes 14,400 16,500 30,900 9,432.8 QR 754.59 QR 15,091.78 QR 45,991.78

Stainless C Yes 14,400 22,000 36,400 9,069.8 QR 725.57 QR 14,511.33 QR 50,911.33

2(c) — Material selection trade-offs

Question 1 : Based on calculations in part

 Lowest initial cost? — Galvanized iron (QR 90/m → QR 7,200 for 80 m).
 Lowest friction loss? — UPVC / HDPE (identical roughness in data) gave the
lowest hf ≈ 0.4027 m.
 Smoothest surface (lowest roughness)? — UPVC & HDPE (ε = 0.0015 mm =
1.5×10⁻⁶ m).

Question 2 : Hot climate / corrosion

· Most resistant to corrosion at high temperatures? — Stainless steel is the most

corrosion-resistant of the listed materials and will perform best at 35–40°C in terms of
corrosion resistance and durability.
· Material NOT recommended for hot water and why? — Galvanized iron is not
recommended for long-term service with warm/hot water in a coastal/desalinated
water environment: galvanized coatings can degrade, scale and corrosion/galvanic
issues accelerate at elevated temperatures and with aggressive water (risk of zinc
leaching, pitting). Stainless or HDPE/UPVC are better choices for hot climates.

Question 3: Life-cycle results

· Lowest total 20-year cost combination (pipe + pump + 20-yr energy): Galvanized
iron + Pump B (QR 38,830.17).
· Caveat: This is a strictly financial life-cycle number using the provided roughness &
costs and ignoring maintenance/repair/replacement. It does not include costs for
corrosion repair, replacement, or water quality concerns (which would increase
lifecycle cost for galvanized).
· If owner wants to minimize initial investment (capital cost): choose Galvanized +
Pump A would be cheapest initial cost (pipe QR 7,200 + pump QR 11,000 = QR
18,200). BUT Pump A is infeasible (cannot meet head), so the cheapest feasible initial
capital choice is Galvanized + Pump B (initial total = QR 23,700).

Question 4 : Final recommendation

Recommended pipe material: HDPE (or UPVC if mechanical toughness is prioritized)

— brief justification: HDPE provides very low roughness (same hydraulic
performance as UPVC), good thermal and chemical resistance for hot climates,
excellent long-term corrosion resistance (important with desalinated water and high
ambient temperatures), and moderate initial cost vs stainless steel. Considering
Qatar’s hot climate, maintenance needs, and lifetime durability, HDPE balances
lifecycle cost and operational risk better than galvanized—even if galvanized had the
lowest raw lifecycle sum under idealized assumptions. (If the owner prioritizes
absolute longevity and corrosion resistance and budget allows, stainless steel is the
premium option.)

Part 3 — Storage Tank Design and System

Configuration
 Average daily domestic demand = 30,000 L/day = 30.0 m³/day (150 L/person/day
× 200 people).
 Peak system demand (domestic + cooling) = 5.625 L/s = 0.005625 m³/s (from
Part 1).
 Fire protection requirement = 30.0 L/s for 30 minutes (Qatar Civil Defence).
 Roof tank location: 2.0 m above 8th floor (assignment).

Tank shape: cylindrical, with H/D = 1.5

Gravity head at fixture from tank = difference in elevation between water surface and
fixture (used below).

3.a — Roof storage tank sizing (volume & dimensions)

Step 1 — Required storage components

Minimum 2-day emergency storage (QCS requirement):

V2 d =2× daily demand=2×30.0 m 3=60.0 m 3.

Peak-hour demand buffer: (one hour of peak system demand is a standard

conservative buffer)
Peak system demand = 5.625 L/s = 0.005625 m³/s.

One hour volume: Vpeak ,hour = 0.005625 m3/ s ×3600 s =20.25 m 3

Fire protection reserve: (required 30 L/s for 30 minutes)

Vfire = 30 L / s ×1800 s =54000 L =54.0 m 3

Step 2 — Total required roof tank volume (conservative)

Vtank = V2 d + Vpeak ,h our + Vfire =60.0+20.25+54.0=134.25 m 3.

Interpretation: The roof tank is sized to provide the QCS two-day emergency storage
(60.0 m³), a one-hour peak demand buffer (20.25 m³), and the full fire reserve (54.0
m³). This conservative approach ensures on-site availability for emergencies and peak
events; alternatively the fire reserve may be provided from a separate dedicated fire
tank if the owner wants smaller domestic storage.

For a cylindrical tank with H/D = 1.5:

Let D = diameter (m), H = height (m) = 1.5 D. Volume:

2
πD 3
V= . H (1.5 D)=0.37 π D
4
1/3
V
Solve for D: D =( )
0.375 π

Using V = 134.25 m 3

Using V=134.25m 3 ;
Compute 0.375π = 1.178097250.375(approx).
3
D ≈ 134.25/1.17809725 ≈ 113.995
Cubic root: D ≈ 4.85 m (rounded to 2 decimal places: 4.85 m).
Height: H = 1.5D ≈ 1.5×4.85 = 7.27 m.

Design dimensions (rounded for construction):

Diameter D ≈ 4.85 m
Height H ≈ 7.27 m
Volume V ≈ 134.3 m 3

Interpretation : A single cylindrical roof tank of about 4.85 m diameter and 7.27 m
height meets the calculated 134.25 m³ requirement with H/D = 1.5. For practical
 construction, consider using two smaller tanks (e.g., two tanks ≈67 m³ each) for easier
handling, maintenance, and thermal control.

3.a — Pressure available at 8th-floor fixtures from roof-

tank gravity
Tank water surface is 2.0 m above 8th-floor fixtures (assignment). Gravity head at
8th-floor fixtures:
hgrav =2.0 m
Convert to pressure: P=ρgh=1000×9.81×2.0=19 620 Pa=19.62 kPa(gage).

Interpretation: Gravity alone from the roof tank provides only ≈19.6 kPa at
8th-floor fixtures — far below the QCS minimum requirement of 150 kPa.
Therefore, a gravity-only distribution from the roof tank is not sufficient to
meet QCS pressure requirements at the highest fixtures; pumps (or a
pressurization system such as a variable-speed booster) are required to
maintain the minimum 150 kPa unless a separate pressurized system is used at
or near the fixtures.

3.a — Thermal considerations (summer tank temperature 35–40°C)

 Thermal rise: In Doha the tank water may reach 35–40°C in summer (assignment
context). Higher water temperature reduces viscosity slightly and increases
disinfectant decay; it also promotes algal growth and biofilm formation if the tank
is exposed to sunlight.

 Practical measures:

Provide UV-reflective roof/insulation, shading or buried tanks where possible to

reduce water temperature.
Use opaque/floating covers and secure lids to prevent sunlight and debris ingress.
Include mixing/recirculation provisions and routine chlorination/monitoring to
maintain water quality.
Consider tank ventilation control and periodic cleaning access.

 Interpretation (paste-ready): Given likely summer water temperatures (35–40°C),

the tank should be insulated or shaded, fitted with secure covers, and include
water-quality management (mixing and disinfection). Elevated temperatures
increase maintenance and water treatment needs; these operational costs should
be considered in lifecycle planning.
3.b — System configuration comparison

Below is a concise comparison table you can include directly in your report. For each
factor I give a short justification.

System 1: Direct Pumping with System 2: Pump → Roof Tank (Gravity

Factor
VSD (No roof tank) distribution)
Low if pump fails. If pump High. Roof tank provides immediate
stops, no supply to upper floors gravity supply for a limited period; pump
Reliability
— critical. Redundancy requires failure still allows occupants to access
backup pumps. stored water.
Moderate. Pumping intermittently to fill
Good with VSD. VSDs maintain
tank can be scheduled off-peak but frequent
Energy pressure and reduce throttling
cycles may reduce efficiency; gravity
efficiency losses, match pump speed to
distribution requires little energy except for
demand, saving energy.
top-up pumping.
Variable. Pressure at fixtures depends on
Very stable. VSDs maintain
Pressure tank level and local static head (and is low
constant pressure setpoint under
stability without additional pressurization); top
varying demand.
floors need booster to meet QCS.
Lower (no tank) — saves capital Higher (tank + structure) — tank,
Initial cost cost of tank(s) and structural roof supporting structure, access, and piping
reinforcement. increase upfront cost.
Lower mechanical maintenance
Higher — tanks require periodic inspection,
(no tank cleaning) but requires
Maintenance cleaning, disinfection, and roof structural
pump/VSD upkeep and possible
checks.
redundancy.
None (unless backup systems
Emergency Built-in — provides 2+ days (per design) of
implemented) — no on-site
storage emergency water.
reserve for outages.
Moderate — VSD reduces
Suitability for energy but lack of stored water Mixed — storage helps resilience, but tanks
Qatar (hot increases vulnerability to supply exposed to heat require insulation and
climate) interruptions during extreme maintenance (water quality concerns).
heat.

Interpretation : System 1 (Direct Pump + VSD) excels at pressure stability and

operational energy efficiency but offers no emergency storage; System 2 (Pump to
Roof Tank) gives resilience and emergency supply but increases capital cost and
requires management of high tank temperatures and water quality.

3(c) — Recommendation

Selected system: Hybrid System — Pump to Roof Tank + VSD-controlled Booster

for Distribution
Description: Pumps fill the roof tank during off-peak hours and as required; a
variable-speed booster pump (or small VSD-controlled pressurization set) maintains
the QCS-required pressure at fixtures (including the 8th floor) by boosting gravity
pressure as needed. The booster runs only when required, and the roof tank provides
emergency storage and redundancy.

Justification :
A hybrid system combines the resilience of roof storage with the energy and pressure
control advantages of VSD technology. The roof tank (≈134.3 m³) provides the QCS
two-day emergency reserve and fire buffer, ensuring continuity during municipal
interruptions. A VSD-controlled booster ensures 150 kPa minimum at the highest
fixtures while reducing pump energy by matching output to demand; this arrangement
also allows off-peak filling to exploit lower energy rates and reduces peak power
demand. For Doha’s climate, the hybrid approach balances reliability, regulatory
compliance, and long-term operating cost while allowing water-quality management
measures for hot-season performance.

3.d — Practical notes & recommendations for report inclusion

 Alternative for owner with limited budget: Provide separate dedicated fire water
tank sized for fire reserve (54 m³) and a smaller domestic tank sized only for 2-
day domestic + peak buffer (~80.25 m³), or split into two ~67 m³ tanks. This
reduces the volume of a single roof tank and simplifies maintenance.
 Structural & access: Roof tank(s) of the computed size require structural
verification of rooftop load capacity and safe access for inspection/cleaning.
Provide an allowance in capital cost for roof strengthening if tanks are roof-
mounted.
 Controls: Include level control, float switches, high/low alarms, and a VSD with
pressure transducer(s) and local manual override for the booster pump.
 Water quality: Add tank insulation, opaque covers, periodic cleaning schedule,
and a disinfection/chlorination plan to manage 35–40°C summer water
conditions.
Part 4 — Fire Protection Integration
Key data

Required fire flow: 30.0 L/s for 30 minutes (Qatar Civil Defence). Peak domestic +
cooling flow: 5.625 L/s
Worst-case simultaneous flow (domestic + fire): 35.625 L/s.
Elevation to 8th floor: 28.0 m (8 × 3.5 m).
DN100 riser assumed for domestic distribution; DN100 area = 0.007854 m²

4.a — Fire pump head calculation (deliver 30 L/s at 400 kPa at remote point)

Convert pressure requirement to head:

400000 Pa 400000
h press = = =40.7747 m
pg 1000 × 9.81
Elevation head to top (static):
helev =8×3.5=28.0 m .
Hydraulic losses — pipe sizing for fire flow (velocity limits)

If the main (fire) flow were to be carried in DN100 (0.100 m) the velocity would be:
2 0.03
A100 = 0.00785398 m ; V100 = =3.82 m / s .
A100
which exceeds the QCS maximum velocity limit (3.0 m/s). Therefore DN100 is NOT
acceptable as the fire main for the 30 L/s flow. A larger diameter must be used for the
fire main.

Select DN150 (0.150 m) for the dedicated fire main (common engineering practice —
keeps velocity below limit and reduces head loss). Calculations below use DN150:
2 2
A150 = π (0.15) /4=0.0176715 m
0.03
Velocity at 30 L / s : V 150 = 1.6977 m / s
0.0176715

Friction & minor losses (estimate)

Use conservative Darcy–Weisbach estimate with f=0.02f = 0.02f=0.02 (as used

earlier) and assume minor-loss coefficient Ktot=8K_{tot} = 8Ktot=8 for
fittings/valves.

Major loss:
2 2
LV 80 1.6977
hf = f =0.02. . ≈1.5669 m .
D 2g 0.15 2 × 9.81
2 2
V 1.6977
h m = Ktot =8. ≈1.1751 m .
2g 2 × 9.81
 Total required pump head for fire (m)
Hfree = h press + h elev + h f + h m =40.7747+28.0+1.5669+1.1751 ≈71.52 m .

Conclusion ): A dedicated fire pump must be capable of delivering ≈ 71.5 m of head

at 30 L/s to ensure 400 kPa at the fire outlets on the highest floor, assuming a DN150
fire main and the loss estimates above.

4(a) — Can an existing main pump (Pumps A/B/C from assignment)

handle the fire demand?

Pump heads

· Pump A: 40 m — insufficient (40 < 71.5 m).

· Pump B: 50 m — insufficient (50 < 71.5 m).

· Pump C: 60 m — insufficient (60 < 71.5 m).

Conclusion: None of the three provided domestic pumps (A, B, or C) can deliver the
required 71.5 m head at 30 L/s. Therefore, a separate fire pump (or a higher-head fire-
capable pump) is required for code-compliant fire protection.

4.a — Fire water storage volume

Fire volume for 30 L/s for 30 minutes:

Vfire = =30 L / s ×1800 s =54000 L =54.0 m 3.

4(a)— Fire pump electrical power estimate (specification)

Hydraulic power required:

P h yd =ρgQH =1000×9.81×0.03×71.5167≈21,047 W ≈21.05 kW .

Assume fire pump efficiency ηfire=70% (typical conservative value for fire pumps).
Electrical input:
Ph yd 21.05
Pe ; ec = ≈ ≈30.07 kW .
η 0.70
Recommendation: Specify a fire pump capable of 30 L/s at 75–80 m head (include
margin over calculated 71.5 m), with a motor rating ≈ 30–37 kW (select standard
motor size of 37 kW / 50 Hz to provide margin). Efficiency should be ≥70%. Include
a jockey pump (small booster) for maintaining system pressure and an automatic
starter tied to pressure switches and/or the fire alarm system.

4(b) — Worst-case scenario: Fire + peak domestic demand

simultaneously
Flows:

· Domestic (peak) + cooling = 5.625 L/s.

· Fire = 30.0 L/s.

· Total flow if served by the same pump = 35.625 L/s.

Practical issue: If fire and domestic demands are combined into a single main
(unlikely and not recommended), the pipe diameter must be increased so velocities
remain within limits. Using DN150 for the combined flow:

· Combined flow Q_total = 35.625 L/s = 0.035625 m³/s.

· Velocity in DN150: V = Q/A = 0.035625/0.0176715 ≈ 2.0160 m/s (acceptable < 3

m/s).

· Recomputing friction and minor losses (f = 0.02, K_total = 8):

hf ≈2.2095 m
h m ≈1.6571 m
Total head required to provide 400 kPa at outlets while also conveying domestic flow:
h total = h press + h elev + h f + h m ≈40.7747+28.0+2.2095+1.6571≈72.64 m .

Can any assignment pump handle this? No — Pump C max head = 60 m < 72.64 m,
Pump B = 50 m, Pump A = 40 m: none can. Even Pump C with 60 m is insufficient.
The safety factor relative to available pump head is negative (insufficient), showing
the infeasibility of using the domestic pumps for combined fire + peak flow.

H pump ,max − Hrequired

Safety factor =
H required

For Pump C: SF = (60−72.64)/72.64 = −0.174 → -17.4% (negative indicates

shortage).

4(b) — Modifications & recommended design to safely handle fire

scenarios

· Provide a dedicated fire pump set (separate from domestic pumps): Specification
(recommended): 30 L/s at 75–80 m head (allow 5–10% margin), motor size ≈ 37 kW
(standard motor), efficiency ≥70%. Include automatic start on pressure drop or fire
alarm and manual local control. Include a jockey pump (small constant-pressure
pump) to maintain system pressure and reduce cycling.
· Use a separate dedicated fire main sized DN150 (or larger if long horizontal runs or
additional hose connections are required) to keep velocities < 3 m/s and minimize
friction loss.
· Fire water storage: Provide a dedicated fire water tank (ground or roof) of 54 m³
minimum. For reliability, locate the fire tank at ground level adjacent to the fire pump
to provide stable suction head (avoids cavitation risks). If the roof tank is used as the
fire source, provide reliable means to pump from roof (ensure suction conditions and
pump NPSH available).
· Redundancy & reliability: Provide at least N+1 redundancy for the fire pump in
large/high risk buildings (i.e., main + standby) if budget allows; otherwise ensure the
single fire pump has robust service and test schedule.
· Controls & protection: Install pressure switches, low-suction alarm, automatic start
tied to building fire alarm, non-return valves on discharge, and flow/pressure
monitoring instrumentation. Ensure compliance with local fire codes for pump room
access, ventilation, and electrical supply
.· Hydraulic separation: Do not rely on domestic pumps to supply fire demand.
Separate systems reduce the risk of losing domestic supply during a fire event and
avoid pump overload.
· Testing & maintenance: Schedule monthly pump tests and annual full-flow tests;
include automatic weekly exercise routines for the motor and jockey pump.

4(c) —

The building requires a dedicated fire pump capable of delivering 30 L/s at ≈71.5 m
head (use a design target of 75–80 m head to provide safety margin) because the
existing domestic pump options cannot meet the head requirement. The fire water
storage requirement is 54.0 m³ (30 L/s for 30 min) and is already included in the
previously sized roof tank (≈134.3 m³), though for reliability it is recommended to
provide a ground-located dedicated fire tank and a DN150 fire main to ensure stable
pump suction and acceptable flow velocities. Worst-case simultaneous operation (fire
+ peak domestic) would require ≈72.6 m head at 35.625 L/s and cannot be handled by
Pump A/B/C; hence a separate, properly rated fire pump and dedicated distribution
are mandatory.

4(d) — Items to include in the schematic & report checklist

· Fire pump location, discharge head and capacity label (30 L/s @ 75–80 m), motor
size (≈ 37 kW).

· Dedicated DN150 fire main (riser) routing to hydrants and hose reels; show key
valves (non-return, isolation), jockey pump and suction source (ground tank or
pumped from roof with dedicated suction).

· Fire water storage volume and location (54 m³). If roof tank used for fire, indicate
reliable low-level pump suction pipe and checks to prevent loss of suction.

· Automatic start controls tied to fire alarm system; test ports and flow meters.

· Pressure relief and backflow prevention devices at appropriate locations.

Part5 Compliance with QCS 2014 Requirements
Requirement 1 — Emergency Water Storage (2-day minimum)

QCS Requirement: Minimum 2-day supply of average daily domestic demand must
be stored.

Average daily domestic demand = 30,000 L/day = 30 m³/day.

2-day storage required:
3 3
V2 d =2×30 m =60 m .
Design Provided

Roof tank volume = 134.25 m³ (from Part 3).

134.25 m 3 >60 m 3

Complies with QCS emergency storage requirement.

Requirement 2 — Pressure Limits (150 kPa minimum,

500 kPa maximum)
Minimum pressure:
QCS requires ≥ 150 kPa at any fixture.
At the 8th floor:

· VSD booster ensures ≥150 kPa at all fixtures.

· Gravity alone gives ~19.6 kPa (insufficient), so booster is included.

Maximum pressure (≤500 kPa):

Check pressure at ground floor when using the booster pump.
Booster pump setpoint

Setpoint = 350 kPa (typical for mid-rise buildings).

Ground floor static elevation head from booster location is ≈ 0–2 m.

Pressure at ground floor:

PGF ≈350 kPa
Below 500 kPa → Safe
Below 450 kPa → No pressure relief valve required
Interpretation

All fixtures maintain at least 150 kPa, and no point exceeds 500 kPa, so the design
fully complies with QCS limits.

Requirement 3 — Backflow Prevention Devices

QCS requires backflow prevention to avoid contamination.

Minimum THREE locations are required.

Requirement 3 — Backflow Prevention Devices

QCS requires backflow prevention to avoid contamination.

Minimum THREE locations are required.

Backflow Devices Required At:

1. Connection between municipal water supply and the building system

(Prevents backflow into municipal mains.)
2. Before the booster/VSD pump discharge line
(Prevents reverse flow when pump is off.)
3. Fire pump discharge line
(Prevents crossflow between fire and domestic systems.)
4. (Optional but recommended) Before cooling tower make-up line.
5. (Optional) Before storage tank inlet and outlet.

Requirement 4 — Velocity Limits (0.5–3.0 m/s)

Velocity in DN100 domestic riser

Flow = 5.625 L/s = 0.005625 m³/s.

Area DN100:
A=0.007854 m 2
V = 0.007854/0.005625 = 0.716 m/s
Between 0.5 and 3.0 m/s → Complies.

Velocity in DN150 fire main

Flow = 30 L/s = 0.03 m³/s

Area DN150 = 0.01767 m²
V = 0.01767/0.03 = 1.70 m/s
It does complies.

5(b) Environmental Impact Calculations

We use the selected pump for the domestic system:

Pump B (best-performing feasible option).

 Annual energy: 9,435.29 kWh/yr

 CO₂ factor = 0.5 kg CO₂/kWh

Step 1 — Annual Energy Consumption

From Part 1:
E year = 9,435.29 kWh
Step 2 — Annual CO₂ Emissions

CO 2 = E year×0.5 = 9,435.29×0.5 = 4,717.65 kg CO 2 per year.

Step 3 — Comparison with the worst-case pump (Pump C)

Pump C annual energy = 12,394.56 kWh/yr

Difference in energy use:
ΔE = 12,394.56−9,435.29 = 2,959.27 kWh/year

Difference in CO₂ emissions:

Δ = 2,959.27×0.5 = 1,479.64 kg /year

Step 4 — Emission Equivalence (cars and trees)

One car emits ≈ 4,600 kg CO₂/year .

One tree absorbs ≈ 20 kg CO₂/year.

Cars removed from the road

1,479.64/4,600 = 0.3227 ≈ 0.32 cars

Equivalent trees planted

1,479.64?20 = 73.98 trees ≈ 74 trees
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM

ROOF TANK
134.25 m³

Domestic Riser

Domestic Booster
Pump (B)

Municipal Water Supply

FIRE PUMP
30 L/s @ 75–80 m

Jockey Pump

FIRE MAIN
DN150

FIRE STORAGE TANK

54 m³

FIRE STORAGE TANK

54 m³
Comparison Tables

Table 1 — Pump Comparison (Based on Part 1c)

Feasible Annual Annual 20-yr Capital

Hmax Qmax Electrical
Pump for Energy Cost Energy Cost
(m) (L/s) Input (kW)
Design? (kWh/yr) (QR/yr) Cost (QR) (QR)
❌ Not
feasible
A 40 15 3.462 10,109.24 808.74 16,174.79 11,000
(H too
low)
✅
B 50 12 3.231 9,435.29 754.82 15,096.47 16,500
Feasible
✅
C 60 10 3.107 9,072.40 725.79 14,515.84 22,000
Feasible

Table 2 — Pipe Material Comparison (Part 2a)

Roughness ε f (Swamee– Major Head Pipe Cost 80 m Total

Material
(m) Jain) Loss hf (m) per m (QR) Cost (QR)
Galvanized
0.000150 0.02462 0.5149 90 7,200
Steel
UPVC 0.0000015 0.01925 0.4027 125 10,000
HDPE 0.0000015 0.01925 0.4027 140 11,200
Stainless
0.0000020 0.01928 0.4032 180 14,400
Steel
Table 3 — Pipe + Pump Life-Cycle Cost (Part 2b)

Initial Pipe Pump Initial 20-yr Energy Life-Cycle

Material Pump
Cost (QR) Cost (QR) Total (QR) Cost (QR) Total (QR)
Galvanized B 7,200 16,500 23,700 15,130.17 38,830.17
Galvanized C 7,200 22,000 29,200 14,548.25 43,748.25
UPVC B 10,000 16,500 26,500 15,091.60 41,591.60
UPVC C 10,000 22,000 32,000 14,511.16 46,511.16
HDPE B 11,200 16,500 27,700 15,091.60 42,791.60
HDPE C 11,200 22,000 33,200 14,511.16 47,711.16
Stainless
B 14,400 16,500 30,900 15,091.78 45,991.78
Steel
Stainless
C 14,400 22,000 36,400 14,511.33 50,911.33
Steel

Table 4 — System Configuration Comparison (Part 3b)

System 1: Direct Pumping with System 2: Pump → Roof Tank

Factor
VSD (Gravity)
Low (no storage; pump failure
Reliability High (roof tank gives stored water)
= no water)
Energy Moderate (depends on pump-to-
High with VSD
Efficiency tank cycle)
Excellent (constant-pressure
Pressure Stability Poor at top floors without booster
VSD)
Initial Cost Lower (no tank) Higher (tank + structure)
Maintenance Lower Higher (tank cleaning, insulation)
Emergency
None Built-in (≥2 days)
Storage
Climate Needs insulation; risk of high tank
Moderate
Suitability temperature
FINAL DESIGN SUMMARY
This design report presents the complete domestic and fire water supply system for an
eight-storey residential building in Doha, Qatar. The design includes hydraulic
calculations, pump selection, pipe material assessment, storage tank sizing, fire
system integration, regulatory compliance, and life-cycle evaluation. All calculations
are performed according to the assignment requirements and Qatar Construction
Specifications

Building Demand and Flow Requirements

The building accommodates 200 residents, each consuming 150 L/day, yielding an
average daily domestic demand of 30.0 m³/day. Applying the required peak hour
factor (3.0) and simultaneous use factor (0.6) gives a peak domestic demand of:
Q peak , dom =0.625 L / s
With the cooling tower make-up requirement of 5.00 L/s, the peak system flow is:
Q peak , total =5.625 L / s
A fire demand of 30 L/s for 30 minutes is required, giving:
3
Vfire = 54.0 m
The worst-case combined flow (domestic + fire) is 35.625 L/s, used for system checks
but kept hydraulically separate in the final design.
Domestic Pumping and Hydraulic Performance

To achieve the QCS minimum pressure requirement of 150 kPa at the 8th floor, the
system must overcome:

28.0 m elevation difference

Friction losses over an 80 m riser
Minor losses (K = 8)
Required residual head equivalent to 150 kPa

The total pump head requirement is:

H pump ,reg =43.92 m

Based on the pump data provided, Pump B (50 m head, 12 L/s capacity, 75%
efficiency) is the optimal choice. Pump B meets all flow and head requirements and
provides the lowest combination of capital and operating cost among feasible options.

Annual energy consumption for Pump B is 9,435 kWh/year, leading to a 20-year

operating cost of QR 15,096.47.

Pipe Material Selection

Four materials were evaluated: galvanized steel, UPVC, HDPE, and stainless steel.
Friction factors were determined using the Swamee–Jain equation, and head losses
were evaluated at the peak flow.
Key findings:
· Galvanized steel has higher roughness and friction losses but lowest initial cost.
· UPVC and HDPE offer low friction, minimal corrosion, and ease of installation.
· Stainless steel performs well hydraulically but is the most expensive.

HDPE was selected as the recommended material due to its excellent durability in
Qatar’s hot climate, resistance to scaling and corrosion, and low maintenance
requirements. Although HDPE is slightly more expensive than galvanized steel
initially, its life-cycle cost is significantly better considering corrosion impacts over
time.

Storage Tank Design

The tank must satisfy:

· 2-day emergency domestic storage → 60.0 m³

· 1-hour peak buffer → 20.25 m³
· Fire reserve → 54.0 m³

Total required storage:

3
Vtank =134.25 m
Using H/D = 1.5, the tank dimensions are:

· Diameter: 4.85 m
· Height: 7.27 m

Gravity from this tank provides only 19.6 kPa at the 8th floor, insufficient for QCS
requirements. Therefore, a hybrid system is adopted: a roof tank for storage + a VSD
booster pump for pressure regulation.

Fire Protection System

A dedicated fire pump is required because none of the domestic pumps can meet the
fire system head requirement.

Fire pump head required:

Hfire =71.5 m

Fire pump specification:

· 30 L/s @ 75–80 m head
· Motor rating: 37 kW (standard)
· Includes a jockey pump and DN150 fire main.
A dedicated 54 m³ fire tank is provided, integrated with the main tank or as a separate
chamber, ensuring stable suction conditions.
Regulatory Compliance (QCS 2014)

The design complies with the following QCS requirements:

Requirement Status
2-day emergency storage ✔ 134.25 m³ provided (> 60 m³ required)
Minimum pressure 150 kPa at fixtures ✔ Booster ensures ≥150 kPa
Maximum pressure 500 kPa ✔ Ground floor pressures <350 kPa
Velocity limits 0.5–3.0 m/s ✔ DN100 & DN150 checked
Backflow prevention ✔ Municipal inlet, booster discharge, fire pump line
Fire protection ✔ Dedicated fire pump + required storage

Environmental Impact Summary

Annual electricity use for selected Pump B:

E year =9,435 kWh / year

CO₂ emissions (0.5 kg/kWh factor):
CO 2 =4,717.65 kg / year
Compared with Pump C, the design reduces emissions by: 1,479.64 kg/year
Equivalent to:
· 74 trees planted, or
· 0.32 cars removed from the road annually.
This reduction supports sustainability targets aligned with Qatar National Vision
2030.

Final Selected System

The final water supply system is a Hybrid Pumped + Roof Tank System, consisting
of:
· Pump B (Domestic Booster)
· HDPE piping (DN100)
· 134.25 m³ roof storage tank
· Fire pump rated at 30 L/s @ 75–80 m head
· DN150 fire main
· Dedicated fire storage (54 m³)
· VSD pressure control to ensure stable supply and energy efficiency
· Backflow prevention at three key points
· QCS-compliant pressures, velocities, and storage

This system provides:

· High reliability (storage-based resilience)
· Stable pressure to all floors
· Strong performance during fire events
· Reduced long-term operating costs
· Environmental benefits due to reduced energy consumption
 DISCUSSION OF KEY DESIGN DECISIONS
The design of the domestic and fire water supply system for this project required
several key engineering decisions to ensure compliance with Qatar Construction
Specifications (QCS 2014), operational efficiency, safety, and long-term
sustainability. Each decision in the final design—pump selection, pipe material
choice, system configuration, tank design, and fire system arrangement—was made
following detailed calculations and a clear evaluation of alternatives.
Pump Selection
Three pumps (A, B, and C) were evaluated based on hydraulic performance,
feasibility, and long-term operating cost. Pump A lacked sufficient head and therefore
could not meet the minimum required 43.92 m for supplying the 8th floor,
immediately eliminating it. Pumps B and C both met the head requirement; however,
Pump B was ultimately selected because:
· It meets all hydraulic requirements.
· It has a lower initial cost compared to Pump C.
· Its 20-year energy cost is lower than Pump C when combined with feasible pipe
materials.
· Its total life-cycle cost is the lowest among feasible combinations.

Thus, Pump B provides the best balance between performance, cost, and energy
efficiency.

Pipe Material Choice

Four materials—galvanized steel, UPVC, HDPE, and stainless steel—were analyzed
based on roughness, friction losses, cost, and durability in Qatar’s climate. While
galvanized steel offered the lowest initial cost, it is prone to corrosion, scaling, and
reduced lifespan in hot, desalinated water conditions typical in Doha.
HDPE demonstrated the best overall performance because:
· It has extremely low internal roughness, reducing friction losses.
· It is corrosion-free and has a long lifespan.
· It is lightweight and easy to install.
· It has a competitive life-cycle cost.
Therefore, HDPE (DN100) was selected as the preferred pipe material for the
domestic riser.

Selected System Configuration

Two system configurations were assessed: direct pumping with a variable-speed drive
(VSD), and a pumped roof tank system. While the direct-pumping system offers
excellent pressure stability and lower initial cost, it lacks emergency storage, meaning
a single pump failure would interrupt supply to all residents.

The roof tank system ensures uninterrupted supply but leads to variable pressures at
upper floors and increases the risk of high water temperatures during summer.

The hybrid system was selected because it combines the advantages of both:
· The roof tank provides two-day emergency storage in accordance with QCS.
· The VSD booster pump ensures 150 kPa minimum pressure at fixtures at all times.
· Pump operation becomes more energy-efficient due to off-peak filling cycles.
· The system remains functional even during pump maintenance or municipal
interruptions.
This hybrid approach enhances reliability, regulatory compliance, and long-term
performance.

Storage Tank Design Decisions

The roof tank size of 134.25 m³ was selected to satisfy:

· Two days of domestic demand (60 m³).

· One-hour peak demand buffer (20.25 m³).
· Full fire reserve (54 m³).
A cylindrical tank with a height-to-diameter ratio (H/D) of 1.5 was used to maintain
structural efficiency and stability. While gravity from the tank provides only 19.6 kPa
to the 8th floor—below the QCS requirement of 150 kPa—the VSD booster
compensates for this shortfall. The tank will require shading or insulation to mitigate
Qatar’s high ambient temperatures and maintain water quality.

Fire System Decisions

A critical design decision was separating the fire system from the domestic system.
The fire demand of 30 L/s at 400 kPa required a pump head of approximately 71.5 m,
exceeding the capacity of all provided domestic pumps. Thus, a dedicated fire pump
rated at 30 L/s @ 75–80 m, along with a jockey pump, was selected.

A DN150 fire main was chosen to maintain flow velocities below 3 m/s and minimize
head losses. A dedicated 54 m³ fire tank or compartment within the main tank ensures
reliable suction conditions for the fire pump. This separation improves reliability and
conforms to local regulations.

Regulatory and Environmental Considerations

All design choices were guided by QCS requirements for storage, pressure limits,
velocity limits, and backflow protection. The environmental impact assessment
demonstrated that using Pump B reduces CO₂ emissions by 1.48 tonnes per year
compared to the worst-case pump option, equivalent to planting 74 trees annually.
This supports sustainability goals while minimizing operational costs.

Overall Design Philosophy

The final design prioritizes:

· Reliability – through emergency storage and redundant fire systems.

· Efficiency – via optimal pump selection and VSD control.
· Compliance – meeting all QCS requirements for pressure, storage, and fire
protection.
· Sustainability – through reduced energy use and lower CO₂ emissions.
· Safety – by segregating domestic and fire systems and ensuring high-performance
fire suppression capability.

Thus, the final configuration reflects a well-balanced, technically sound, and cost-
effective water supply strategy suited for residential buildings in Qatar’s climate.