WIPAC Monthly - October 2017

WIPAC MONTHLYThe Monthly Update from Water Industry Process Automation & Control
www.wipac.org.uk Issue 10/2017 - October 2017

In this Issue
From the Editor.................................................................................................................... 3
Industry News................................................................................................................. 4 - 9
Highlights of the news of the month from the global water industry centred around the successes of a few of the
companies in the global market.
Instrumentation & the Factory approach............................................................................. 10-12
In this month’s feature article we look at instrumentation and its use in the factory approach to treatment and how
moving forward we need to get the best value out of the instrumentation that we have in order to maximise efficiencies
in the water industry.
Focus on: Turbidity & solids measurement.......................................................................... 13-16
In both potable and wastewater treatment the measurement of turbidity is commonplace. In this month’s “Focus On”
article e look at what turbidity actually is, how we’ve traditionally measured it manually and the modern approach to
measuring it online
Workshops, Conferences & Seminars................................................................................... 17-18
The highlights of the conferences and workshops in the coming months

WIPAC Monthly is a publication of the Water Industry Process Automation & Control Group. It is produced by the group
manager and WIPAC Monthly Editor, Oliver Grievson. This is a free publication for the benefit of the Water Industry and please
feel free to distribute to any who you may feel benefit.
All enquires about WIPAC Monthly, including those who want to publish news or articles within these pages, should be directed
to the publications editor, Oliver Grievson at olivergrievson@hotmail.com

From the Editor
Collaboration and focus in what the industry does best has got to be the key for the future. It’s something that the
industry, when it does it, can do it very very well. We’ve seen the collaboration between water company and supplier
recently over the detection and management of Metaldehyde and there are some other fantastic examples. The end user
tends to know what they want but aren’t very vocal in saying it. This means that the suppliers at times have to guess what
they want and hope that there is a market for the latest technology. This way a lot of Research & Development money
doesn’t necessarily have the focus and therefore the risks are much higher.
The question is - “what do we want as an industry?”
In the UK at the moment we are going through the “bill” to present to the industry financial regulator, OFWAT. There are
a huge number of stakeholders involved and at times it feels overwhelming and then the various things that the various
stakeholders want simply change. There is a direction involved but not something that is completely 100% certain of
happening. What of course this does from a supply chain point of view is to introduce risk. With enough time and enough
surety that a particular innovation is going to have a market then there is the potential there for companies to work
together to produce the technology that the industry requires. If that surety is not there then the driver to develop the
product is certainly not there. This is especially the case for measurement & control systems.
The industry can collaborate all it wants but without knowing where to collaborate it makes the direction of development incredibly difficult and thus risky for
both supplier and end user. This ends up with the torturous trial cycle that most of the supply chain is, quite frankly, bored of. This means the development
of instrumentation & control systems is further delayed to the extent that the developments are ready to be accepted by the industry after they are actually
needed. There was talk about the development of testing centres in the UK but its not something that supply chain or end user has particular seen evidence
of yet. In the UK the WRC is probably one of the most well developed testing centres but there is potential for others to be developed and utilised. An example
of this is at the University of Sheffield where I visit two or three times a year to catch up with the staff there as they are perhaps one of the leading univer-
sities in free -surface flow measurement. To walk into one of their teaching room and see a motorised flume for the students to learn with was something
that I certainly hadn’t seen before and then to move onto their testing laboratories and see the developments that they are making in measuring flow in the
wastewater network shows there is some hope for the development of technologies that the water industry requires.
What of course this highlights is that need for collaboration between not just supply chain and the end user but bringing academia in there as well. This
takes a lot greater a collaboration that we have seen to date in not just the technological developments but also looking into strategic directions. The Water
Companies all produce strategic plans, the governments look into the national strategic directions. The concept of the smart city has been around for quite a
few years now but it doesn’t seem to have penetrated to the water industry as much as it should have done. The urban population in Europe is predicted to
be between 80 - 85% by 2050 according to the United Nations so the question that has to be asked, especially since the water companies are planning that far
into the future now, is whether we have the water and sewerage infrastructure to cope with these huge pressures moving forward.
The pressures are there and how the wider population development piece relates to the direction of the water industry very much lies with the national
Governments to influence the future direction of the water industry. For the UK the Price Review window, our 5 yearly “account” is closing and the direction
and the plan to deliver the things that need to be delivered is locked in place. The next time the window opens again is in 2024 when the total cost of the
industry is reviewed all over again.
Tick Tock Tick Tock Tick Tock goes the clock
Have a good month
Oliver

Cutting-edge EU software platforms support effective
emergency responses
EU-funded researchers have developed two cutting-edge software platforms that European crisis responders can now use to improve coordination,
communication and preparedness.
The platforms could help prevent catastrophes escalating, reduce economic losses and save lives.
Natural disasters such as floods, storms and earthquakes, or infrastructure failures such as a dam collapse or an electrical blackout can have broad impacts
beyond the immediate event. The consequences on other infrastructure and communities can affect many more people and spread beyond regional or national
borders.
Flooding in Germany, for example, can rapidly spread to the Netherlands. A dam failure in the Alps could impact towns in both France and Italy and affect
transport, water and electricity networks, while an incident with a power station in one European country may trigger blackouts elsewhere.
Today, stakeholders have some knowledge of the dependencies between them, but there is still little clear understanding of possible interactions and cascading
effects in scenarios that have impacts outside of individual stakeholders’ daily work, system borders and communication horizons.
In Europe, this situation has resulted in generally weak cross-sectoral cooperation between actors in different cities, regions and countries.
To bridge the gaps, the EU-funded project FORTRESS studied past responses to crises and analysed the interdependencies between different systems and
actors. The work has led to two state-of-the-art software platforms that are now being made available to crisis responders across Europe to improve
coordination, communication and preparedness.
FORTRESS’ tools aim to help crisis managers and infrastructure operators analyse and understand their mutual dependencies, develop a common understanding
of the risks of cascading effects and plan coordinated information exchange and responses during crises.
Having tested prototype demonstrators and evaluated the results in practice with Dutch and German crisis management teams, the FORTRESS researchers are
planning to make the tools available to end-users across Europe, initially as part of an integrated inter-sectoral workshop programme.
Advanced modelling to mitigate crisis escalation
On the one hand, the FORTRESS Model Builder enables multiple stakeholders across organisations and countries to systematically describe and model
interactions between entities, such as infrastructure operators or crisis first responders, which may become relevant or affected during different kinds of
incidents. As a collaborative modelling platform, the tool enables input from numerous stakeholders in order to generate a network of dynamic dependencies
and visualise how each affects the others.
Project coordinator Leon Hempel of the Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft at Technische Universität Berlin explains:
“In crisis situations, cascading effects occur when the impact of a physical event or system failure causes a sequence of events in other human or non-human
systems that lead to consequences with higher magnitudes.”
“It is not simply a linear chain of events but rather a spreading of disruptions in complex ways. An initial impact can trigger diverse effects that expand not just
in one but multiple directions involving amplification and feedback loops.”
This information in turn feeds into the FORTRESS ‘Incident Evolution Tool’, which provides stakeholders with a means to evaluate how a crisis initially impacting
one entity may result in cascading effects on other entities, systems and stakeholders.
“By assigning different properties and probabilities it is possible to construct a time line and generate various ‘if/then’ scenarios within a given scenario
framework. This enables the assessment of multiple pathways to predict how events might develop and impact the overall network of nodes, relations and
dependencies,” Hempel says. “All this is not dependent upon real time data, but primarily on the real experiences first responders collected over the years. In
the future, we expect to include additional information from various relevant data sources to facilitate the modelling and to integrate further analytical features.”
Page 4
Industry News

Two teams from Texas clinched first place in their respective divisions during the 30th annual Operations Challenge competition. TRA CReWSers won Division
1, and Aqua Techs took home the top prize in Division 2. Both teams represent the Water Environment Association of Texas. The fun-filled, high-energy event
took place at WEFTEC 2017—the Water Environment Federation’s 90th annual technical exhibition and conference—in Chicago.
Members of the TRA CReWSers are: David Brown, Dale Burrow, Raudel Juarez, Quintin Winters, and Jake Burwell (coach). Members of Aqua Techs are: Edward
Burrell (coach), Kevin Willey (captain), Ryan Brunette, Christian Mendez, and Ernesto Romero.
One of the most anticipated events during WEFTEC, Operations Challenge is a unique and fast-paced test of the essential skills needed to operate and main-
tain wastewater treatment facilities, their collection systems, and laboratories—all vital to the protection of public health and the environment. This year’s
competition included 44 hard-working teams from the U.S., Canada, and Argentina and Denmark.
Over the past 30 years, Operations Challenge has steadily grown from the original 22-team event to this year’s 44-team, two-division format. Teams are judged
on the best combination of precision, speed, and safety. The winners are determined by a weighted point system for five events including collection systems,
laboratory, maintenance, safety, and process control. This year’s process control event was revised to include the installation of an Insetra Tee compression
fitting, provided by Advanced Drainage Systems.
TRA CReWSers, Aqua Techs Win 2017 Operations Challenge
Competition
PwC warns organisations are failing to prepare effectively for
cyberattacks
PwC is warning that organisations worldwide are failing to prepare effectively for cyberattacks and that many still struggle to comprehend and manage
emerging cyber risks in an increasingly complex digital society. The warning comes with the publication of PwC’s 2018 Global State of Information Security®
Survey (GSISS), based on responses of more than 9,500 senior business and technology executives from 122 countries.
Executives worldwide acknowledge the increasingly high stakes of cyber insecurity. Forty percent of survey respondents cite the disruption of operations as
the biggest consequence of a cyberattack, followed by the compromise of sensitive data (39%), harm to product quality (32%), and harm to human life (22%).
When cyberattacks occur, most victimised companies say they cannot clearly identify the culprits. Only 39% of survey respondents say they are very confident
in their attribution capabilities. However, despite this awareness, many companies at risk of cyberattacks remain unprepared to deal with them. Forty-four
percent say they do not have an overall information security strategy. Forty-eight percent say they do not have an employee security awareness training
programme, and 54% say they do not have an incident-response process.
How cyber interdependence drives global risk
Case studies of non-cyber disasters have shown that cascading events often begin with the loss of power, according to PwC — and many systems are impacted
instantaneously or within one day, meaning there is generally precious little time to address the initial problem before it cascades. Interdependencies between
critical and non-critical networks often go unnoticed until trouble strikes. Many people worldwide—particularly in Japan, the United States, Germany, the
United Kingdom and South Korea—are concerned about cyberattacks from other countries.
Tools for conducting cyberattacks are proliferating worldwide. Smaller nations are aiming to develop capabilities like those used by larger countries, while the
leaking of US National Security Agency (NSA) hacking tools has made highly sophisticated capabilities available to malicious hackers.
Lack of cyber security is rising threat to critical infrastructure
PwC is also warning that the soaring production of insecure internet-of-things (IoT) devices is creating widespread cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Rising threats
to data integrity could undermine trusted systems and cause physical harm by damaging critical infrastructure, the report says.
In May 2017, G-7 leaders pledged to work together and with other partners to tackle cyberattacks and mitigate their impact on critical infrastructure and
society. Two months later, G-20 leaders reiterated the need for cybersecurity and trust in digital technologies. The task ahead is huge, PwC says.
Next steps for business leaders
PwC is recommending three key areas of focus for business leaders to prepare effectively for cyberattacks:
C-suites must lead the charge and boards must be engaged: Senior leaders driving the business must take ownership of building cyber resilience. Setting a top-
down strategy to manage cyber and privacy risks across the enterprise is essential.
Pursue resilience as a path to rewards—not merely to avoid risk: Achieving greater risk resilience is a pathway to stronger, long-term economic performance.
Purposefully collaborate and leverage lessons learned: Industry and government leaders must work across organisational, sectoral and national borders to
identify, map, and test cyber-dependency and interconnectivity risks as well as surge resilience and risk-management.
“Few business issues permeate almost every aspect of business and commerce like cybersecurity does today,” said David Burg, Global Cybersecurity Leader at
PwC. “Public-private coordination is critical to effectively addressing cybersecurity.”
Page 5

FCC has published a video highlighting its pioneering project Aerial Robot for Sewer Inspection (ARSI) which it is developing with Eurecat, in a consortium with
other companies within the framework of the European Echord++ (European Coordination Hub for Open Robotics Development).
The innovative drone is equipped with multiple sensors and has been designed to speed up, facilitate and improve the inspection of Barcelona’s 1,500 km
sewerage system. The intelligent robotic solution, that will help reduce human risk in the inspection process, will go into service across the city next year.
ARSI Drone 1FCC’s Environment division has been managing, cleaning and maintaining Barcelona’s sewerage networks since 1911. The head of FCC
Environment’s Technical Department in Barcelona, Raúl Hernández, explains in the video:
“These networks are difficult spaces to work in because they are relatively small and narrow, although they vary in size. The floors and surfaces are slippery,
there’s no lighting at all, and sometimes there are even problems with gases.”
Features the drone has been equipped to overcome these issues include:
• Sensors to monitor air and water quality
• 3D camera to calculate its position and speed
• 2D laser to detect walls and calculate flight paths in real time
• Infrared sensor to measure its distance from the ground and control its altitude
• Autopilot headlights to light up a pitch-dark environment
• Optimisation of equipment performance to reduce battery consumption and achieve longer autonomy
• Benefits to the technology Raúl Hernández explains in the video include:
• health and safety - preventing lipping or posture risks
• amount of information that can be acquired and consulted objectively for long periods of time
• improved productivity by enabling faster completion of inspection tasks along the entire length of a sewer
The project is currently in the advanced prototype stage - “for FCC this technological solution provides safety and comfort in the tasks, as well as very significant
improvements in productivity rates and reduced costs.” Raúl Hernández added.
The Director of the Eurecat Robotics Unit, Pepa Sedó said that this is the first time that the profitability of the use of drones in an activity such as the inspection
of the sewage system has been analysed. From her point of view, “the great flexibility and manoeuvring capability of drones makes them ideal vehicles for
subsoil inspection.”
The ARSI consortium consists of members from across the full value chain including: FCC Environment, Eurecat, a technology centre member of Tecnio with
experience in autonomous robots for difficult environments, IBAK, a world leader in the creation of robots for sewerage inspection and Simtech Design, a
company specialising in flying robots.
In June this year the project was recognised as a “Key Project” 2017 by Eurecat.
FCC showcases drone inspection project in Barcelona sewer
network
Page 6

Collaboration needed for industry to make the most of data
How do we get the most of the data that we collect as an industry? How do we get “meaningful” measurement? This was the question posed at the recent
Sensing in Water conference hosted by the Sensors for Water Interest Group (SWIG). The two-day conference highlighted several themes on how to get the
best of the data that the water industry collects and how to make our measurements meaningful. Chief among those themes was greater collaboration among
the different stakeholders including the water companies, the universities and the supply chain.
The drivers for the use of instrumentation and making measurements
meaningful were highlighted in the two keynotes. Despite all of the hard
work that the industry has already done, including achieving a 99.96%
compliance with drinking water standards, there were still 182 serious,
significant or major incidents in 2016 along with a 68% increase in issues
between 2012-16. Despite being very good at what we do, there is more
work to be done.
The conference also heard about the difficulties of monitoring the
environment that we all live in, with the number of samples taken in a year
by the Environment Agency creeping into six figures. This, of course, is never
enough, and this is where the theme of collaboration comes in. Pressure is
being applied to make the testing that is conducted every day more
economical whilst maintaining a high level of service. Innovation,
using new and more effective sensors, can help here; however, it is through
collaboration between all environmental stakeholders and the sharing of
data that the biggest efficiencies can be made.
It’s a changing world out there and all the different environmental “partners”
must now work together for the good of the wider environment.
Throughout the conference there was evidence of the development of
new sensor technologies, new ways of working, and collaboration. This
ranged from the cutting-edge work that was being done by universities, to
companies working together with a large helping of trust to deliver solutions
which are typically confined to the laboratory into the field.
An example of this was the use of Boron Doped Diamond (BDD) to deliver more
accurate pH measurement. Using diamond to measure pH may seem like overkill, as it is a parameter that we have been measuring perfectly well since the
19th century. However, with the use of material science we can measure with more robustness and more reliability, bringing about more efficiencies in the
way that we, as an industry, operate.
In the water industry there are challenges and opportunities that affect the industry as a whole, and the case study presented on the subject of metaldehyde
was one. The chemical, which is used as a molluscicide, is notoriously difficult to analyse in a laboratory environment let alone online at a treatment works.
The case study showed that a collaborative effort with Affinity Water and its supply chain managed to take a laboratory grade analytical method and convert it
to an on-line method capable of managing different inputs into the water treatment process with a project that doesn’t require a full-laboratory staff to run it.
As an industry we are entering a world where the treatment process is being asked to operate at increasing complexity, and it is through this type of
collaboration that the day-to-day work of managing the water industry to deliver ways of working to assist in this complexity can help the industry to do
“business as usual.”
No modern conference in instrumentation is complete without the arbitrary discussion on big data, and managing the data that we gather each day. This year’s
Sensing in Water did not disappoint. The current case study in Severn Trent Water looking at their catchments at Spernal & Trimpley is a shining example of the
way that the industry can operate. These case studies show that distilling the data that on-line instrumentation collects into useable information allows the
way that we operate to be refined – it allows the operating catchment, including the treatment “factory” and associated system, to be managed and operated
rather than simply sampled and checked. This allows the factory approach that was originally raised by the Dutch organisation STOWA - where as much of the
resource of wastewater is recovered as possible in the most efficient way - to become a reality. All of this happens through the use of instrumentation and
data. Sensing in Water this year showed that instrumentation is a vital tool in the water industry, but we must get the best possible value from the data that
we collect. In order to achieve this, collaboration between water companies, academia and the supply chain is absolutely essential.
Figure1: An example of a test site for instrumentation where water companies and the
supply chain are collaborating.
Page 7
13th - 14th March 2018
Circular Solutions for Water & Energy for the 4th Industrial Revolution

Digital tool developed by Atkins & Thames Water looks set to save
the utility £millions
Southern Water carries out network surveys to identify
misconnections
An idea incubated by a team from Atkins and Thames Water looks set to save the utility firm millions of pounds in general maintenance and regulatory upgrade
costs.
In just three months, a digital tool was developed which is now being used by Thames Water across London and the Thames Valley.
At any time, Thames Water engineers are working on hundreds of projects to serve their 15 million customers. However, coordinating and planning those
projects is a huge challenge, so keeping teams informed and coordinated presents a real opportunity to make cost savings, reduce disruption and improve
services.
Working with Thames Water’s Pressure Management, Mains Rehabilitation and Developer Services teams, Atkins developed a tool which pulls live data from
multiple sources into one simple display, helping planners reduce disruption and costs, and ultimately avoid duplicated work.
Now, when a project is being planned, a quick look at the tool – which uses software designed to present spatial data visually - will map the locations of past,
current and scheduled work programmes within Thames Water’s geographical network.
Sometimes work is brought forward; at other times, a project may be redesigned to take into account future development plans. Duplication of effort is reduced
as a result of the collaboration.
For example, it became clear that the company’s plans to replace lead pipes could be revised and significantly reduced.
Guy Ledger, Atkins’ Business Development Director - Infrastructure, explained:
“We confirmed that lead pipes had already been replaced at 4,000 points between the main supply pipe and property boundaries within the network. This was
quite a considerable overlap that allowed Thames Water to reduce the scope and re-plan the work.”
The innovative use of existing software can also facilitate better collaboration between Thames Water and other asset owners within its extensive service area.
Atkins and Thames Water are now exploring the idea of sharing live project data with Transport for London (TfL) to ensure smarter planning across the water
company’s infrastructure development and maintenance work across London.
Guy Ledger continued:
“This not only has the potential to reduce downtime in TfL’s transport network, which is better for travellers, it also means potentially lower rental charges
against Thames Water for the period of time its work disrupts TfL’s service.”
“We never set out to create a digital tool for Thames Water - our focus was on a specific problem at a specific moment in time. I’d say technology facilitated the
solution rather than shaped it.”
Southern Water has been carrying out network surveys in seven areas as part of a major scheme to bring bathing water quality up to the “excellent” rating
by 2020. Middleton-on-Sea, Worthing and Selsey in Sussex, Deal, Leysdown and Minster Leas in Kent and Shanklin on the Isle of Wight are the coastal areas
selected for a range of improvements as part of the water company’s innovative £31.5 million Bathing Water Enhancement Programme, the first of its kind in
the UK.
To select the seven, Southern Water undertook a rigorous selection process to shortlist 21 bathing waters from the 83 in its region for further investigation.
BWEP3The water company then spent a year carrying out a range of detailed investigations including watercourse sampling, DNA analysis and CCTV surveys
of sewers to understand the causes of pollution at each of the shortlisted bathing waters. It has also separately identified the potential for a second stage of
work at six of the 14 bathing waters which were not selected. The six have a possibility of attaining the Excellent standard if some interventions are pursued.
As part of the scheme, Southern Water has been speaking to thousands of customers to help trace property misconnections – where wastewater pipes are
incorrectly plumbed into surface water drains.
The misconnections mean that wastewater from toilets, kitchens and bathrooms is pumped out to sea before it’s treated, affecting the quality of bathing
water at local beaches.
The utility is also working closely with local authorities on tackling misconnections and other issues - such as dog waste on the beach - which are currently
preventing its bathing water reaching the highest standard.
Southern Water Programme Manager Brian Rousell said:
“The South East’s bathing waters are already among the cleanest in the UK, but our customers have asked us to do more to help them get even better.
“We’re working in seven areas to help them reach the highest rating of ‘excellent’ by 2020 and stay there. This means bathing water will be cleaner than ever,
which is good news for local people and the environment.”
Page 8

Wastewater test could give early warning system for epidemics
Interactive map helps SE Water retain BSI asset management
certificate
New ‘water fingerprinting’ technology developed by researchers at the University of Bath to test a city’s water could soon be helping the fight against infectious
diseases and antibiotic resistant ‘superbugs’ such as E. coli.
In an internationally collaborative project, experts from the University of Bath and Stellenbosch University (South Africa) are teaming up to develop a real-time
community-wide public health early warning system (EWS) by measuring biomarkers – molecules made by the body that characterise disease and illness – in
the sewage system.
Urban water contains a mixture of human waste, wastewater and run off samples, pooled from contributing populations. To epidemiologists, this cocktail
contains a treasure trove of information on the underlying health status of the population and surrounding environment.
The project will combine state-of-the-art methodology in chemistry, genetics and electronics to unlock this information and `provide real-time health
“profiles” of urban water samples. This will enable government health professionals to identify early on any risks to public health and therefore attempt to
mitigate potential widespread crises such as pandemics and infectious diseases.
Africa and Asia are experiencing unprecedented population growth and urbanisation. Over half of the world’s population now live in urban areas and as the
world population continues to grow alongside increasing urbanisation, it is projected that by 2050 2.5 billion people will be added to the urban population.
This exceptional speed of urbanisation and global population growth poses substantial risks to the resilience of cities in preventing widespread poor public
health. Working with local organisations East Rand Water Care Company (ERWAT), Stellenbosch River Collaborative (SRC) and Enkanini Research Centre (ERC),
the project will use Stellenbosch as a case study to trail this technology to understand the feasibility of implementing a EWS in South Africa and in other LMIC
(Low and Middle income) countries across the world.
Lead Investigator and Professor in Environment & Analytical Chemistry at the University of Bath, Barbara Kasprzyk-Hordern said: “This project focussing on
Urban Water Profiling can become a truly effective, real time and low-cost local, national and ultimately global surveillance system enabling authorities to
effectively identify and prevent threats to an urban population’s health.”
Professor in Microbiology and Director of Stellenbosch University Water Institute, Gideon Wolfaardt, commented: “South Africa, where 65% of the population
live in urban settings and is predicted to grow to 80% by 2050, provides a good representation of the alarming rate of urbanization that often exceeds the rate
at which additional medical care can be introduced.
“Community-wide surveillance can thus become a powerful first line of defence in health care, and the experience gained here can be transferred to other
countries.”
The ReNEW project (Developing Resilient Nations – Towards a Public Health Early Warning System via Urban Water Profiling) has received £1.1 million of funding
from Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) through the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and will last three years.
A new interactive map allowing South East Water
customers to go online to view engineering works and
upgrades to its drinking water distribution network has helped
the company retain its British Standard Institution (BSI)
asset management certificate in the 2017 annual assessment.
PAS 55 is the BSI’s Publicly Available Specification for the
optimized management of physical assets. -
The British Standard is produced by the Institute of Asset
Management and recognised as a benchmark for how physical
assets and infrastructure are managed.
It covers design, acquisition or construction through to
operation, maintenance, renewal and ultimate disposal of a
company’s assets and takes into account new innovations like
the new interactive website map detailing upgrades to
company assets such as water mains (https://inyourarea.digdat.
co.uk/southeastwater)
Andy Ball, South East Water Head of Asset Management, said:
“We invest hundreds of millions of pounds in our assets and infrastructure to deliver high quality drinking water to 2.2m customers.
“The renewal of our PAS 55 certificate is a seal of approval that the approach we take is working for the ultimate benefit of our customers.”
Page 9

Article:
Instrumentation &
the Factory approach?
Introduction
The Water Industry is constantly being pushed to do more for less, provide a better value for money for the customer and generally make things cheaper. More
and more the Water Companies are being told to be more efficient in the way that they operate their businesses and it is the core part of the business, the
operational environment that often bears the brunt of this pressure. In 2010 the Dutch research organisation produced the Wastewater Treatment Plant of
2030 in which the factory approach was raised. We are now six years down the line and this article will look at where we are getting things right and where
more development needs to be undertaken.
To come back to the principles though we have two ways of making wastewater treatment works more efficient. The first is of course to limit the amount of
resource that is consumed, the second is to actually produce resources. In both of these areas instrumentation has a key role to play although in reality this is
only going to be on the larger wastewater treatment works which have the potential to actually work as a “resource factory.”
Resource reduction
The most important thing on any wastewater treatment works is that “Compliance is king,” whatever happens the environmental permit must be met. In
the wastewater network of course it is protect the customer first and then protect the environment. Outside of this the next most important thing is where
possible reduce the cost of operation.
The problem is of course quite often where the operational costs are being spent simply aren’t known and so the standard methods of operating the treatment
works are taken. The majority of money is spent on aeration of the activated sludge plant. In which case limit the aeration, put DO control in place. Often the
obvious efficiencies are made without the full appreciation of the real picture and what the industry ends up with is something that is “partially optimised” but
not delivering its potential full benefit.
This is of course, on the larger plants, where instrumentation, process automation & control systems will help, however this is also shutting the potentials
of the wastewater network out of the picture. In reality the industry should be looking at how the different elements of the collection network and the
receiving wastewater treatment works are working together. This way, as was found out last year as the result of various studies, the industry can treat to a
higher standard for a lower cost. A Win-Win situation.
So in terms of the philosophy what can we do as industry, on large treatment works to reduce the amount of resource that operationally we consume:
An Intelligent Controlled Wastewater Collection Network - This may seem to contain an element of “pie in the sky” thinking but actively controlling the
wastewater collection network is starting to happen within the UK. It is certainly not common but it is growing more in popularity due to the benefits it has the
potential to deliver.
What the actually look like in terms of monitoring and control is simple sewer level monitoring, rain gauges and weather radar as the dynamic inputs into a op-
erational predictive based catchment based model. The potential benefits, which haven’t completely been realised yet, although certainly have been thought
of is that flows can be balanced within the system as far as the capacity allows to smooth peaks of flow and load that is passed onto the treatment works balanc-
ing this against protection of the customers due to potential sudden inundation of a full sewer, the potential for encouraging septicity and of course protecting
the environment by ensuring that levels don’t rise high enough to cause illegal discharges from overflows from the sewer environment. The side benefit that
has been used in the systems that have been built is that keeping the sewer relatively full, when it can be, has limited the prevalence of infiltration.
Instrumentation is of course key to this without the level based monitoring it would be impossible to track how full the sewer is to ensure protection of both
customer and environment. :Level monitors within the CSOs can also ensure there are no illegal discharges to the environment. By preventing these it can
help to improve the river environment towards the elusive “good status” that is the target enabling environmental permitting the potential to stay still and not
tighten to ever lower standards
An Intelligent Wastewater Treatment Works - Process Control has been within the Water Industry since the 1970s although the modern advanced process
controllers started to be installed in and around 2010. They have been adopted in the UK at a handful of wastewater treatment works but not to the potential
that exists. Unfortunately the benefits of these systems are not truly understood and the case studies do not fully exist to justify the expenditure in putting the
control systems in place.
Although the systems that are commercially available do not fully rely on instrumentation they do rely on monitoring of the situation of what is happening on
the treatment works itself. The commercially available controllers that are available include several different applications on the treatment works from simple
Sludge Age as a part of nitrification control, to chemical dosing control to controllers for sludge applications. The more holistic control systems look at the state
of the different element of the treatment works to assess the process state of the works and control it to achieve the best possible potential outcome. This is
multivariate process control at its best and is based upon modelling of the treatment works itself.
System Modelling
In reality what this takes is that there are operational models for both the network and the wastewater treatment works, each distinctly different, but working
Page 10

together.
Even within the wastewater treatment works there is the potential to run distinct process based sections of a control system but within a wider based
multi-variate process based, instrument fed, control system. The concepts of doing this on a single treatment works has never happened before, certainly in
the UK and perhaps not around the world. The fact of bringing a model based network control system together with a plant based control system is something
that is pretty much unheard of within the global water industry.
Instrumentation is of course central to this
Resource Production
The production of resources on wastewater treatment works is something that the industry has been doing for the best part of twenty years now, ever since
the ban of dumping sewage sludge at sea. Energy production using anaerobic digestion and the subsequent generation of energy is reaching heights where
wastewater treatment works are truly becoming energy factories. However in order to this a relatively tight control of the sludge quality is needed. This turns
the sludge treatment facility into what should be an efficient factory.
In reality it is not always like this and the water industry is, sometimes, one of the few production industries to fail to measure the product that they are
producing in terms of (a) energy and (b) the biosolids product that is produced. In general though.
However the UK Water & Sewerage Companies did have targets to generate a total of 965 GWh of electricity by 2015 as stated in the final business plan for
the period from 2010-15.
Water Company Target (GWh)
Anglian Water 87
Dwr Cymru (Welsh Water) 46
Northumbrian Water 71
Severn Trent Water 180
South West Water 10
Southern Water 64
Thames Water 288
United Utilities 125
Wessex Water 51
Yorkshire Water 43
Total 965
Case studies of where the water industry have driven towards both resource
reduction and resource production by using a systematic approach are few and
far between and the detail tends to be lacking. The most recent was the press
announcement from Denmark that a treatment works would be, for the first
time, net positive in the energy that it uses.
A water treatment plant in Denmark will become the first in the world to produce
50% more electricity than it uses, according to a press release.
According to the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food, the Egå Renseanlæg
treatment plant near Aarhus is undergoing a total renovation to install new technol-
ogy that will transform the facility into an energy producer.
“When the treatment plant at Egå is in full operation in autumn 2016, it will be
producing 50% more electricity than it consumes. This has never been seen before,”
the ministry said in a statement.
“The new technology works by using a form of bacteria to filter polluted materials
from sewage water,” Jan Tøibner of water utility Aarhus Vand said. “Organic mate-
rial is used [by the plant] to filter waste water. With the new form of bacteria we
are using, the organic material uses much less energy in cleaning the wastewater.”
This means that the waste material can be used to create gas and electricity, while
less energy is used in the purification process itself.
In a recent topping-out ceremony at the plant, Eva Kjer Hansen, the Danish Minister
for Environment and Food, said: “Treatment plants must move forward from being
energy guzzlers to being energy producers, and we have a really good example of
this here at Egå. This is an area in which Denmark can enhance and develop its
position in eco-technology.”
It is clear from the press release that the amount of energy that is being used is
In terms of energy generation within the Water Industry and pushing further in the concept of the energy
factory it can be clearly be argued that the water industry in the UK is pushing further and further in what
they do. However there is always the potential to do more and generate yet more electricity from sewage
sludge.
The production of biosolids through the sludge system is often not measured as much as it should be and
there are technical challenges to measuring some elements within the sludge treatment system. With
the right technology it possible that the Water Industry that has come so far in sludge management could
potentially move much further ahead than it currently is. This would take the full adoption and monitoring
over and above what is already done. Not just using HACCP principles that are currently used to guarantee
the quality of what is produced but using the principles of the factory approach to optimise the efficiency
of the process. However the driver isn’t truly there at the moment and it may take diversification of the
industry in something such as gas to grid to make the investment pay.
If this is the case the monitoring of the product as it goes through the sludge chain becomes financially
beneficial.
Page 11

being is being reduced so that the energy that is produced on site is surplus to what is used by increasing the efficiency of the treatment processes.
Discussion
The future of the Water Industry is going to see, certainly for
larger treatment works the adoption of the “factory approach” that
was raised six years ago in the STOWA report. In that report it pointed
to the areas that it had already happened. Where the report was, in
hindsight, lacking. Was in the technological innovations that have
happened since.
It is clear from what has happened since that the Water Industry has
chosen a direction insofar as the use of instrument fed model based
approaches to control not only the wastewater treatment works but
also the wastewater collection network. This is using fairly simple
and widely available instrumentation to at least provide the
fundamental basis of control . Then using a combination of both static
rule and model predictive control (see table right, from the Danish
Network control philosophy in 2010) it is possible to provide not only
control of individual element of the system but the entire collection
and treatment system as a whole.
It is through a combination of the use of instrumentation and the use
of model of differing forms that the future of the Water Industry lies
Why asset management matters
Keeping a detailed asset inventory at a treatment works is a must, and is the first step towards an effective asset management approach
Historically, maintenance of assets such as motors and drives has never been high on the list of priorities for water companies because of the large degree of
redundancy built into their sites. There was always another unit that could be switched in while the duty unit was out of service.
This has changed in recent years as water companies find themselves having to service higher customer demand, leading to them to use all their capacity and
reducing their scope for redundant systems. Now, asset maintenance is coming centre stage as companies seek to maximise the reliability of assets that are in
near constant use.
With dozens of electric motors and VSDs on a typical water treatment works for example, it seems reasonable to assume that a site would have a detailed
inventory of every single asset. Yet this is not always the case. Even sites that know where their VSDs and motors are located may not have any other intelligence
about the maintenance records or schedules of such assets.
With the growing demand for resilient pumping systems, this lack of asset knowledge could be proving more costly than you think. Unless the motor and VSD
are regularly maintained, the 60 percent energy savings that you bought into when the pump system was installed could be far less.
But with so many assets across a typical site, do you have in-house maintenance teams that can handle the volume, let alone have the technical skills to know
what to maintain?
You have two choices: train your engineers or outsource to a motor-driven pump specialist.
Whichever route you choose, generating a detailed asset inventory is a must. For motors, all end-users should have a Motor Management Policy. This
documents every single motor and offers a series of maintenance policies from rewind to replace. For VSDs, ABB offers a database called Installed Base. Any VSD
that you buy is automatically registered in the database including date of purchase, location, application, loading, parameter setting and maintenance intervals.
The tool enables maintenance budget allocation to be based on the criticality of each drive asset, and ultimately prolongs asset life. Whenever a maintenance
routine is due, the tool alerts you and can schedule a visit from a qualified service engineer.
A qualified service engineer will carry out routine maintenance – ensure connections are tight, air filters are dust free and replace any parts such as capacitors –
thereby making sure that the energy saving figure you are expecting is actually achieved. They can also help fine-tune the application to ensure that you sweat
the asset and get the optimum performance. This could be something as simple as switching on energy optimisation, also known as flux optimisation, which
enhances the VSD’s efficiency, squeezing out even more energy saving.
The engineer will also keep you up to date with the latest technologies. For instance, for the first time, low voltage motors can be fitted with a smart sensor.
The device remotely tracks the vibration, temperature and energy use of a motor. A traffic light system on a mobile device indicates the motor’s status to the
engineer: green = good, amber = service interval due, red = imminent failure.
Alternatively, you can train your own in-house maintenance teams. ABB runs several courses, delivered either at your premises or an ABB site, that will keep
maintenance teams fully on top of those vital installed pumping assets.
Page 12

Focus on:
Turbidity & Online Solids
Measurement in the Water Industry
Introduction
Turbidity is one of the parameters that is measured within the water industry, whether in the clean or wastewater side of the industry isn’t really understood
that well. Turbidity is the solids content but not really; it’s an indication of other things, it’s a surrogate of other things. So what really is turbidity and why do
we measure it in the water industry.
If we refer back to basics and have at look at how “Standard Methods” and have a look at what the “definition” of turbidity even the definition (under the
nephelometric method) is somewhat woolly
The Nephelometric turbidity method is based on a comparison of the intensity of light scattered by the sample under defined conditions
with the intensity of light scattered by a standard reference suspension under the same conditions. The higher the intensity of scattered
light the higher the turbidity.”
Confused? So turbidity is scattered light or is it the concentration of particles that is causing the scattering. Its fair to say, from the standard definition, that its
confusing to actually define what turbidity is. Oh and by the way, Nephelometric?
So, using the same textbook lets have a look at what the sources & the significance is
Turbidity in water is caused by suspended and colloidal matter such as clay, silt, finely divided organic and inorganic matter, and plankton,
and other microscopic organisms. Turbidity is an expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather
than transmitted with no change in direction or flux level through the sample. Correlation of turbidity with the weight or particle number
concentration of suspended matter is difficult because the size, shape and refractive index of the particles affect the light scattering prop-
erties of the suspension.
From this we are getting close to actually defining what turbidity is. It is the light refraction caused by particles in suspension but not necessarily related to the
solids matter that is present because it takes into account the refraction index of the particles themselves.
Maybe looking into how it is measured will allow us to understand what it actually is
Turbidity measurement: Jackson & Nephelometry
Who is Jackson & what is Nephelometry? This is all about the history of turbidity measurement.
The normal procedure in 1912 used the turbidity standard adopted by the U. S. Geological Survey: “a water which
contains 100 parts of silica per million in such a state of fineness that a bright platinum wire one millimetre in
diameter can just be seen when the centre of the wire is 100 millimetres below the surface of the water and the
eye of the observer is 1.2 meters above the wire.” A rod with a platinum wire on the end was calibrated by placing
graduation marks on the rod, at various distances from the end, and this was lowered into the water as far as the
wire could be seen. The vanishing depth was compared to a table of known values to get the measured turbidity.
A suggested alternative to the platinum wire method was the use of a candle turbidimeter. This consisted of a
graduated glass tube with a flat polished bottom, enclosed in a metal case. Observations were made looking
vertically down through the tube at an image of an English standard candle. Water samples were poured into
the tube until the image of the candle disappeared, and this depth was compared to a table of known values to
determine experimental values.
By 1933, the Jackson candle turbidimeter became the standard for making turbidity measurements. This
instrument could not be used for samples with turbidity less than 25, however, and in these cases, turbidity
measurements were made by other means. For samples with turbidities between 5 and 25, determinations were
made by comparing samples to standards in clear glass bottles with a capacity of 1 litre or greater. For samples
between 0 and 2, a similar procedure involving long glass tubes and a Baylis turbidimeter was used
A modified version of the Jackson Candle Turbidimeter is still used today for coarse measurement of turbidity. These
turbidity tubes were part of TICE 22 which was the standard operating procedure for monitoring wastewater in the
UK before the industry privatized in 1989.
However, the weaknesses of the Jackson method and the weaknesses of the turbidity tube is that it relies on a
person’s eyesight and what one person measures using this method can be completely different to what another
person, with a different eyesight measures.
The development in the measurement of turbidity came with the development of the Nephelometric or the
Nephelometric Formazin Method of turbidity measurement.
Figure 1: Jackson Candle Turbidimeter
Page 13

The Nephelometric method is based upon Nephelometry which, as in so much in the water industry, actually originates from the medical industry. The
technique measures the scattered light at an angle of 90⁰ from the incident light beam. Modern methods use Formazin as the standard solution which is why
the units in a modern meter can often be seen as either NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) or FTU (Formazin Turbidity Units) as opposed to the historic use
of JTU (Jackson Turbidity Units).
The uses of turbidity
Turbidity is often used in both the potable side of the water industry where it is actually a regulated parameter or as
a surrogate parameter in the wastewater industry for total solids. When we examine the allowed concentration in
potable water it can be seen why the Jackson Unit became a redundant parameter.
In potable water the maximum allowable concentration for turbidity is 1 FTU at the potable water treatment works
or 4 FTU at the customer’s tap. As we found out looking at the history of turbidity measurement the Jackson method
struggled below 25 JTU. Hence the N or FTU method became the industry standard.
In wastewater things are slightly different although as standards get tighter perhaps things should be reconsidered.
Still within the water industry the turbidity tube is commonly used.
This is a variation on a theme of the Jackson Candle Method but using natural light. The Black & White disc at the
bottom of the tube is actually a variation of a Secchi disk that is actually used in measuring the clarity of lakes.
There are obvious weaknesses of this methodology but the simplicity &
cheapness of the method and the fact that it was part of TICE 22 means
that the method still prevails. However in the modern industry where
the suspended solids consents are getting tighter and tighter there is an
argument that the method is no longer valid and as an industry there
should be a move towards using nephelometric methods of analysis.
In an ideal world though, in the wastewater side of the industry, there
should be a move towards using gravimetric suspended solids as these are what actually form part of the
Environmental Permit. The disadvantage to using this approach is the complexity and the need for additional
equipment such as an analytical balance. Something that is hard to replicate in field operations.
As a result of this work has done in the past to relate turbidity to both the suspended solids concentration and also to the Biochemical Oxygen Demand
concentration. The latter is something that also formed part of TICE 22. In this method the result from the turbidity tube was halved and additional 5 was add-
ed. What the basis of this was is unknown as all references to the technical instruction have been lost in time but at best it can only give a finger in air estima-
tion. Relating turbidity to suspended solids has a much greater scientific basis as of course there will be a relationship between suspended solids and turbidity
and the key factor is whether or not the relationship is stable. As was discussed earlier this depends upon whether or not the refractive index of the particles
within the water sampled changes as any significant change would introduce analytical error into the methodology.
In general though this relationship does tend to be stable as the basis of most suspended solids monitors that are available on the instrumentation market
measure the suspended solids content based upon the measurement of turbidity using Nephelometry.
A diversion into Suspended Solids
So what are suspended solids? Well here is the definition
The suspended solids of a solution is the mass of solids in a 1 litre solution (or volume corrected to 1 litre) after filtration through a GF/C
1.2μm filter paper dried at 105⁰C.
In practice nowadays the temperature is waived as long as the filter paper is dried before and after the sample is filtered.
So we can see immediately that the refractive index of the particles is not included as so is a major difference between the methodologies as is the size
parameter as particles smaller than 1.2 μm will not be included in the suspended solids method unless trapped by the aggregation or collision of particles so
that they are incorporated.
In wastewater this would be the ideal parameter to measure however the need for vacuum filtration systems, analytical balances and a microwave oven make
the method impractical to measure in the field. This is why turbidity is a method that is still used more often than not.
Establishing the relationship
As earlier stated the relationship between turbidity and suspended solids has been successfully established but for online instrumentation should be
established on a site a site basis. Many end users have done this. An example of this can be seen in figure 4
From this example it can be seen that there is a stable relationship between turbidity and suspended solids especially at the lower ranges. From this it can be
seen that it is valid to use turbidity as a surrogate parameter for suspended solids but the question is at what point, if any, does the relationship breakdown
and how sensitive is turbidity as a measurement when the consented suspended solids limits are very low. To answer this question we need to look at the
technologies for measuring turbidity in both potable and wastewater and understand how they work and their limitations.
Figure 2: Turbidity Tube
Figure 3: Secchi Disk
Page 14

Online instrumentation for turbidity
The theory of turbidity is fine and interesting to know, the Jackson Candle method for measuring turbidity and its derivative of course aren’t relevant for
measuring turbidity automatically online and so all of the modern online instrumentation is based upon the Nephelometric method. What does this look like
in practice and what are the uses in the modern water industry.
The online turbidity meters are covered under ISO7027:2016 which is the standard for monitoring turbidity. The ISO 7027 Turbidity Technique is used to
determine the concentration of suspended particles in a sample of water by measuring the incident light scattered at right angles. The scattered light is
captured by a photo-diode, which produces an electronic signal that is converted to a turbidity value as illustrated in Figure 5. Modern turbidimeters use
nephelometric measuring principals instead of transmittance because forward scattering of light is dependent on the shape and size of the particle. Thus
measuring transmittance can be difficult at low or high turbidities due to the variability of the light transmitted through the sample.
The common light sources used in turbidimeters are
incandescent lamps, termed “polychromatic” because of the
broad spectrum they emit. The many wavelengths of light
coming from this source can cause colorimetric interference
in turbidity readings. Also, incandescent lamp output tends
to fade over time as the lamp burns out making it necessary
to calibrate and check stability of the instrument more
frequently. Some Turbidity Modules uses light emitting
diode (LED) or “monochromatic” light source, which emits
a narrow band of light (Infrared) minimizing wavelength
interference. Light emitting diodes have a lifetime of 10
years, 20 times greater than incandescent light and require
no warm up time. Although LEDs are used to emit a narrow
spectrum of light through the sample it is quite difficult to
produce a light source that will emit a single wavelength of
light further increasing the accuracy of the measurement.
`
The actual instruments themselves tend to come in two different types of installation with different models for different applications. The first type is for
measuring in tanks or an “open” environment and the second type for measuring inside closed pipes. Both types have similar parts associated with them.
• Light source – typically LED that emits in the infrared band
• One or two photo-diodes with the first being at 90⁰ and the second
(usually used for solids measurement) at 140⁰
• A sleeve in either PVC or metal
• Optics window
• Wiper shaft and arm for keeping the optics window clean
The standard method only requires the photo-diode at 90⁰ and the additional
sensor at 140⁰ is there to act as a reference for back-scatter. When using turbidity to
measure solids it is of course essential to calibrate it to individual sites as the nature
of the solids are different from site to site.
In strict terms a turbidity meter should be directly calibrated against a standard
solution of Formazin (figure 7) and its why NTU is often referred to as FTU or
Formazin Turbidity units rather than Nephelometric Turbidity units. However they
are often calibrated using a comparative calibration method by measuring the
turbidity using a calibrated portable device and comparing this to the online monitor.
Figure 4: Establishing the relationship between Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity is essential for using the method to measure solids
Figure 5: The theory of online turbidity measurement
Figure 6: An online turbidity monitor (Hach)
Page 15

The introduction of the further step of course can introduce a further potential
source of error.
Once turbidity is used to measure solids then this of course should be
calibrated directly against the suspended solids by measuring them
gravimetrically. Depending upon the application and the degree of accuracy
that is required this should be done from a weekly to a monthly basis
Conclusions
Turbidity is a method that is widely used in both potable and wastewater
applications with many uses. Modern instruments can be incredibly accurate
with a typical calibrated accuracy of 1% with a similar sort of repeatability. The use of turbidity to “measure” suspended solids in wastewater applications
ranging from sludges at the high end of the range to mixed liquors at the medium range means that turbidity is widely used. When it comes to the very low
range of final effluents then the solids function tends not to be used and measuring the turbidity to imply when the regulated parameter of suspended solids
is in danger of being breached is where the method is applied widely. Where not ideal at least the limitations of the methodology are well understood.
The online method of turbidity is essential to both the potable and wastewater industry and it is fascinating to see how developments in the method have seen
it go from measuring water quality over a candle to the modern methods of today.
Figure 7: Turbidity Calibration Standards
The Rise of the Digital Engineer
It is estimated that digitalisation of construction will lead to annual global cost savings of $0.7 trillion to $1.2 trillion within 10 years. This potential, for digital
technology to enhance performance, is not lost on the new generation of water company leaders.
“Embracing digital technology will set us apart from our peers,” Liv Garfield, Severn Trent’s Chief Executive said recently; while appointing the company’s first
digital chief officer will, “transform the way we work,” according to Thames Water Chief Executive Steve Robertson.
The lower weighted average cost of capital proposed in Ofwat’s PR19 consultation will make this a particularly difficult AMP, with inefficient companies risking
greater penalties than in current and previous AMPs. To gain maximum value in an industry so dependent upon its supply chain to drive innovation, water
companies need partners who understand and can realise the potential for digital data gathering, manipulation and analytics to deliver data and insight driven
outperformance of financial and operational targets. We are moving into the age of the ‘Digital Engineer.’
Digital data tools enable efficient and optimised asset creation and asset management and vitally - with an even greater emphasis on Totex in AMP7 - enable
informed, integrated investment decisions across assets’ entire lifecycle.
Currently the industry favours designs based upon precedent. Digitising asset data, through intelligent process and instrumentation diagrams (iP&IDs),
facilitates an iterative design process. We test assumptions in a virtual environment to identify the most efficient blend of cost and asset performance for the
real-world. For example determining the optimum integration of a replacement process unit in a treatment plant.
Intelligent P&IDs – which we have introduced on two large-scale wastewater projects - allow the extrapolation of a BIM environment 3D model with 4D (time)
and 5D (financial, e.g. unit costs) data - to provide complete project and asset information. This affords the potential to identify opportunities to enhance
schedule, quality and health and safety: where, for example, the use of off-site pre-fabrication can be expanded.
Intelligent P&IDs’ benefits extend beyond asset creation, and into operations and asset management. They create digital records for every component of an
asset, providing operations with a complete, live, easy-to-access, inventory of the asset base – the root of data-driven asset management investment. We have
the building blocks of a digital data model, covering all aspects of an asset, which remains live and interactive through the asset’s lifecycle – which goes to the
heart of Totex.
Data is the key to ensuring that water companies’ ever-increasing asset base can meet the needs of customers and regulators. More data, better data and -
most importantly - better data analysis, to provide the insights to outperform. Water companies will maximise the value of their assets by maximising their
understanding of their assets.
For example our data analytics tool, ASSET360, allows asset performance data to be combined with external data such as energy tariff information, to identify
the lowest cost of operation. We have also developed a tool to analyse multiple data points from wastewater pumping stations in order to accurately predict
the risk of pollution incidents.
The demand for this kind of support will only grow as data becomes central to demonstrating regulatory compliance or service level reporting; to predicting
asset failure and developing risk-based asset management programmes; and central to evidence based decisions for future investment decisions.
As data gathering and analytics tools proliferate across water companies’ operations, systems integration - interoperability - is key to maximising their value.
As important as individual technologies is the ability to select, assemble and integrate groups of technologies in the manner that best meets or outperforms
clients’ targets. This means starting to move towards a common data environment for water companies, their delivery partners, OEMs, and customers.
We are not there yet, but we may reach this point sooner than later. Data traffic increased by 50% between 2014 and 2015. For a technology to become
embedded in everyday life requires a critical mass of circa 100 million users. It took 75 years for the telephone to achieve 100 million users; Pokémon Go
achieved 100 million users in 25 days. The speed of the digital revolution can be bewildering, but with the right partners, water companies stand to reap the
benefits.
Page 16

November 2017
Innovation Brokerage Workshop
22nd
November 2017
University of Bath, UK
Hosted by the Sensors for Water Interest Group
January 2018
Water & Health
31st
January 2018
University of West England, UK
March 2018
Latest Developments in Water Sensors
20th March 2018
Birmingham, UK
Hosted by WWT
WWT Smart Water Networks
20th March 2018
Cambridge, UK
Page 17
Conferences, Events,
Seminars & Studies
Conferences, Seminars & Events
Innovation Brokerage Workshop
Where: University of Bath
When: 22nd
November 2017
There is a wealth of new technology and innovation being developed in UK
universities which often translates into the development of new products in
industry. Successful translation and exploitation of academic research
depends on recognising potential and forming necessary collaborations.
This SWIG Innovation workshop is designed to bring together academic
research groups and interested companies to identify potential technologies,
collaboration, exploitation opportunities in the area of sensor technologies
developed for use in water.
The need for new sensor technologies for water is often driven by legislation
and the need for regular measurements at lower concentrations, or the need
for more rapid or more reliable measurements made at remote sensing sites.
This encompasses a wide range of technologies that are used for
measuring physical, chemical or biological parameters in or of water. For
examples sensors that measure water pressure, height or chemical and
biosensors for measuring dissolved components, pollutants or
micro-organisms.
Water & Health
Where: University of West England
When: 31st
January 2018
Approximately 60% of our body is water which is vital for our bodies to
function. We have come to expect clean water for drinking and for our daily
living and to maintain a health lifestyle. Clean water and healthy food are seen
as critical elements in ensuring a healthy nation, reducing the burden on the
NHS. Our health can be put at risk if our water supplies become polluted or
contaminated with bacteria, toxins or other chemicals and heavy metals.
In ensuring that the health of the nation is given priority, the EPSRC have
identified a “Healthy Nation” as one of their Prosperity Outcomes of the
strategy and delivery plan up to 2020. The EPSRC identifies that the
development of new technologies materials will enhance our ability to predict,
detect and treat disease.
The application of new sensing technologies along with more traditional
approaches and the application of connected systems can be used for the early
detection of microbial pathogens and toxic chemicals preventing disease and
ensuring the supply of clean water protecting the population from disease and
contribute towards a healthy nation.
This workshop will have a keynote talk from Public Health England giving an
overview of water-borne disease followed by presentations from companies
and researchers showcasing the latest devices and sensor technologies that
are able to rapidly detect microbiological and chemical contaminants.

WIPAC Monthly - October 2017

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Similaire à WIPAC Monthly - October 2017

Similaire à WIPAC Monthly - October 2017 (20)

Plus de Water Industry Process Automation & Control

Plus de Water Industry Process Automation & Control (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

WIPAC Monthly - October 2017