See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/257489085

Experimental Proof of Contaminant Ingress into a Leaking Pipe During a

Transient Event

Article in Procedia Engineering · January 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2014.02.073

CITATIONS READS

14 367

4 authors:

Sam Fox Will Shepherd

United Utilities PLC, Warrington The University of Sheffield
9 PUBLICATIONS 135 CITATIONS 55 PUBLICATIONS 480 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Richard Paul Collins Joby B Boxall

The University of Sheffield The University of Sheffield
49 PUBLICATIONS 684 CITATIONS 256 PUBLICATIONS 5,699 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sam Fox on 18 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677

12th International Conference on Computing and Control for the Water Industry, CCWI2013

Experimental proof of contaminant ingress into a leaking pipe

during a transient event
S. Foxa*, W. Shepherda, R. Collinsa, J. Boxalla
a
Pennine Water Group, Dept .of Civil and Structural Engineering, University of Sheffield, Mappin Street, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK

Abstract

It has been hypothesised that negative transient pressures may result in ingress of contaminated groundwater through leakage
orifices. This paper presents results of contaminant ingress tests from a novel laboratory facility at the University of Sheffield.
An engineered leak surrounded by porous media was subjected to a pressure transient resulting from the rapid closure of an
upstream valve. It has been shown that a pollutant originating externally was drawn in and transported to the end of the pipe
loop. Thus this paper presents the first fully representative results of contaminant ingress.

©
© 2013
2013TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Publishedbyby
Elsevier Ltd.
Elsevier Ltd.
Selection
Selectionand
andpeer-review
peer-reviewunder
underresponsibility of of
responsibility thethe
CCWI2013 Committee.
CCWI2013 Committee

Keywords: Pressure transient; contaminant ingress; water quality; leakage

1. Introduction

Water distribution authorities are expected to continuously supply clean and safe drinking water, failure to meet
this expectation may have financial repercussions, but more importantly could affect public health. Leakage from
water distribution systems (WDS) is a well-documented issue which impacts both customers and suppliers, in
England and Wales the average reported levels of leakage for 2009-2010 were estimated at 131 litres per property
(OFWAT, 2010). A less well understood and quantified phenomenon in WDS are pressure transients, which can
result in negative pressures. When negative pressures are combined with leaks, there is a risk of contaminant

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 114 2225416; fax: +44 114 2225700.
E-mail address: sam.fox@sheffield.ac.uk

1877-7058 © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the CCWI2013 Committee
doi:10.1016/j.proeng.2014.02.073
 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677 669

ingress. Such ingress could result in possible incidents of water quality deterioration and failure to meet prescribed
standards (Lechevallier et al., 2003). A UK study (Hunter et al., 2005) into self-reported diarrhoea in a control
group found a strong association between reported cases of diarrhoea and low pressures at consumer taps thus
providing a feasible assertion that the presence of low pressures within distribution systems is associated with
contamination events.
While it is generally accepted that negative pressures can result in ingress from surrounding groundwater there
is a perception that, due to the short duration, oscillating nature of pressures transients, only water which has been
expelled from the distribution system will re-enter the pipe or that if contaminant is intruded it will be expelled on
the next positive pressure cycle. In order to ascertain if a contaminant originating external to a pressurised pipeline
can be intruded and remain within the pipeline, thus posing a risk to water quality, an innovative physical
investigation was designed and implemented. The work presented here aims to explore via fully representative, but
extreme, physical experiments if a contaminant originating external to a pressurised pipeline can be intruded and
remain within the pipeline.

2. Contaminant Ingress

For contaminant ingress to occur, three requirements must coexist; a contaminant source external to the
distribution pipe, a pathway providing a route into the system (e.g. leak orifice, joint failure, flooded air valve
chamber) and a driving force such as a pressure transient or sustained low pressure (Lindley & Buchberger, 2002).

2.1. Contaminant Source

An AWWA Research Foundation sponsored study (Kirmeyer et al., 2001) quantified the pathogens that occur in
the ground surrounding mains water pipes. Within the investigation, researchers collected soil and water samples
external to existing water pipelines from six different U.S. states and tested for a range of microbial indicators and
viruses. Results of the study showed fifty percent of the soil samples tested contained faecal coliforms. This source
of contamination coupled with the widespread existence of biofilms within water distribution systems which may
provide shelter and a platform for such pathogenic bacteria and viruses to multiply, highlights the significant risk
to water quality posed by the ingress of external groundwater and other materials into the potable water supply.

Fig. 1. Leaking sewer pipe next to a leaking water pipe (Karim et al., 2003)

A striking example of a potential external contaminant source is shown in Fig. 1 which shows a failed sewer
pipe above a leaking mains water pipe, a clear illustration of the coexistence of contaminant source and pathway.
670 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677

2.2. Pathway

The pathways through which external contaminant may enter the distribution system exist in various forms.
Failures in the integrity of distribution pipes resulting in a system leak, are one potential pathway, such leaks can
be classified as background leaks or bursts based on their size (Clayton & Van Zyl, 2007). The type and size of the
leak openings are dependent on a range of factors including the pipe material and age. Examples of typical leak
types in water distribution systems pipes are pin holes, cracks and joint/connection failures. Another potential
pathway is through air valves when the chamber in which they are located becomes flooded, as shown in Fig 2.

Fig. 2. Submerged air valves (Lechevallier et al., 2003)

2.3. Driving Force

Pressures in WDS are generally assumed to be approximately steady; however, the evidence for this is based on
typical water industry data where pressure is logged at 15 minute intervals. This 15 minute data provides an
artificially ‘smooth’ representation of system conditions, as can be seen in Fig. 3 (a). The true nature of these
systems is dynamic and complex, which becomes appreciable through the use of shorter sampling intervals for
collection of system pressure data. Fig. 3 (b), (c) and (d) are plots of pressure data taken from the same distribution
main and at the same time as Fig. 3 (a), but with sampling intervals of 1 minute, 1 second and 0.1 seconds. The
complex nature of the hydraulic conditions within the water distribution system is clearly evident within these
higher frequency recordings.
Dynamic pressure conditions occur due to a rapid change in the water velocity, which may be a result of
operational changes including valve closures, system depressurisation for maintenance work and changes in
demand, or due to failures such as pump trips and bursts (Collins et al., 2012). These extreme changes of flow
within the system incur the risk of oscillating high and low pressure transients, where the lowest pressures may be
negative (Gullick et al., 2004). Low and negative pressures are most likely to occur downstream from an imposed
obstruction (e.g. valve closure) where the momentum of a flowing column of water may result in the formation of
low or negative pressures bounded at water vapour pressure (Ghidaoui et al., 2005). The greater the initial velocity
of the body of fluid the more extreme the negative pressure wave formed following a sudden change in flow
conditions. As well as the previously discussed ingress and health issue, there is a threat to the structural integrity
of the system from extreme transient pressures.
 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677 671

a b

c d

Fig. 3. Pressure recordings from a live WDS at different sampling rates. Value of sampling rate indicated in top-right corner of each plot.

3. Experimental Methodology

At the University of Sheffield, a large scale and fully representative laboratory facility has been constructed to
investigate pressure transients, leakage and particularly the various factors associated with the potential for
contaminant ingress into distribution systems. The general features of this facility are described in section 3.1, with
the specific setup for determining whether external contaminants can be ingressed into the pipe detailed in section
3.2.

3.1. Contaminant Ingress into Distribution Systems (CID) Laboratory Facility

The CID laboratory facility used for the experimental work, shown in Fig. 4 (a), consisted of a 140 m length of
50 mm nominal internal diameter MDPE pipe with water fed from an upstream reservoir through a 3.5 kW Wilo
MVIE variable speed pump. The system was recirculating, with the system pressure and flow rate controlled
through use of a downstream control valve (item j in Fig. 4 (b)) and the variable speed settings of the system pump
(range 10 - 33.7 rpm). A series of quarter turn butterfly valves, located at points b, e, g and i in Fig. 4 (b) allowed
pressure transients to be generated. Initial tests showed that rapid manual closure of these valves produced highly
repeatable transients.
672 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677

a b

Fig. 4. (a) CID laboratory facility, University of Sheffield. (b) Schematic of the experimental facility (Fox et al., 2012)

The flow rate within the system was measured using an Arkon Flow Systems Mag-900 electromagnetic flow
meter whilst the pressure heads were recorded using Gems 2200 series Pressure Sensors. National Instruments
LabVIEW software was used to log data at 300 Hz through a Measurement Computing PM1820 DAQ.
A test section was located at approximately the middle of the 140 m pipe loop, this section allowed the easy
installation of different leaks and various measurement equipment. The test section, located between valves e and
g in Fig. 4 (b), was a box 1.23 m long, 0.6 m wide and 0.62 m deep, through which the pipe passed longitudinally
through the centre.

3.2. Ingress test setup

For the tests described in this paper, a 0.8 m long section of pipe containing a 5 mm diameter circular
engineered leak orifice was installed in the test section tank. The test section tank was then filled with a porous
media (Fig. 5(a)) and filled with water the depth of which remained constant due to the provision of an overflow
weir. Water from the overflow weir was collected in a container to allow measurement of the leakage flow rate
before being returned to the reservoir. The porous media used was mixed grade pea gravel (approximately 5-
12 mm) consistent with the British Standard for pipe backfill material and the test section pipe centre line was
approximately 0.45 m below the surface of the gravel and the leak orientated horizontally. To ensure that no gravel
entered the pipe system during testing, a fine metallic mesh was placed across the leak opening. A series of
preliminary tests indicated that the head loss through the mesh was negligible and therefore its influence could be
eliminated from any subsequent analysis.

a b

Fig. 5. (a) Setup of test section tank during experimental work (b) Diagram of injection system setup.
 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677 673

Rhodamine WT fluorescent dye, at a concentration of 1x10-3 l/l, was used as a pseudo pollutant. An injection
system was used to create a discrete cloud of ‘pollutant’ at selected locations around the leak. Fig. 5 (b) shows the
setup of the injection system which consisted of a dye reservoir, connected via a 6 mm internal diameter flexible
tube to a check valve, to prevent backflow, and finally to a 1 mm hollow steel needle. The open end of the needle
was positioned in the gravel at different locations relative to the leak, the location of the needle tip is defined using
a Cartesian coordinate system, relative to the leak, as shown in Fig. 6 (with 0,0,0 representing the centre of the
leak). A quarter turn valve beneath the reservoir enabled a controllable and repeatable volume of dye to be
injected for each test.
In order to quantify the volume of any pollutant ingressed into the system, a Turner Designs Cyclops 7
fluorometer was located approximately 50 m downstream of the test section (item k in Fig. 4 (b)) and the output
recorded using the Measurement Computing PM1820 DAQ device. The fluorometer was located at the outlet,
downstream of the control valve, to ensure the Rhodamine WT ingressed was cross sectionally well mixed. A
second fluorometer was located upstream of the test section to record any variations in background concentration
of Rhodamine WT due to the re-circulatory nature of the system.

3.3. Test Procedure

Following preliminary experimental work, a test procedure was finalised to ensure repeatable results were
obtainable from the tests. Prior to each set of tests, the needle was moved to a new location and the gravel re-
packed around it. Tests showed that this repacking of the gravel had no measurable effect on the leakage flow rate.
All tests were run at an initial pipe flow rate of 3 l/s and a test section pressure of 20 m, this flow is at the high end
of what would be expected in a UK distribution system, equating to a velocity of 1.5 m/s, and the pressure is the
minimum which would usually be found, this combination of high velocity and low initial head will result in a
large negative pressure transient downstream of a valve closure. The initial level of dye in the injection reservoir
and injection duration were also constant for all tests, as recorded in Table 1.

Table 1. Experimental testing parameters, defined within test procedure.

Parameter Value
Initial Flow Rate (l/s) 3
Pressure Head (m) 20
Leak Orifice Diameter (m) 0.005
Reservoir Initial Positive Pressure Head (m) 0.4
Injection Time (s) 10
Injection Locations (X,Y,Z) (mm) i) 0,25,0 ii) 50,25,0
Mean leak flow rate (l/s) 0.269

The engineered leak orifice was orientated in the horizontal direction to minimise the movement of the gravel
surrounding the pipe. Two locations for the representative point source of pollutant were chosen within the test
section tank, one in direct line with the leak orifice (Test i)) and one external to the perpendicular line of the leak
orifice (Test ii)). Details of the two locations can be seen with reference to Table 1 and Fig. 6. For each injection
location, a repeatable negative pressure transient was generated within the pipe by rapid closure of the upstream
test section valve (item g, Fig. 4 (b)) at a time equal to half the total injection time. Following the dissipation of the
transient pressure wave within the system, the valve was opened and a further two transients generated at
approximately 30 second intervals without any additional injection to check for remaining dye solution in the
porous media. The total volume dye injected into the test section tank was recorded by measuring the change in the
level of the dye solution in the reservoir over the 10 second injection duration. A minimum of three repeat tests
were conducted for each injection location.
674 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677

Fig. 6. Injection system reference coordinate axis, with centre of 5mm engineered leak orifice at location 0,0,0

Following completion of the experimental work, the fluorometer data was calibrated and background
concentrations removed. From this data, the recovered volume of simulated pollutant ingress was calculated.

4. Results

In Test i), the point source pollutant was located at x = 0, y = 25, z = 0, i.e. 25 mm Euclidian distance away
from the leak orifice, directly in line with the centre of the leak, Fig. 7 shows an example of the recorded data from
the two fluorometers located upstream (blue dashed line) and downstream (black line) of the test section in the top
plot and the pressure approximately 1 m downstream of the leak (black dashed line) and the pollutant injection
period (red dash-dot line) in the bottom plot. The pressure trace shows the three generated pressure transient
waves at approximately 30 second intervals, with dye injected between approximately 7 and 17 seconds. It can be
seen that negative pressures are recorded for over 1 second for each transient. The downstream fluorometer records
a pulse of dye just after 90 seconds, no secondary ingress of dye was recorded from the second and third transients
and no significant recirculation was recorded on the upstream fluorometer. The velocity in the pipe after the leak is
1.38 m/s which equates to a travel time between the leak and the fluorometer of approximately 36 seconds. The
calculated arrival time is 45 seconds based on the periods of time that the valve is open, this is longer than might
be expected due to uncertainties as to the flow velocity during the valve closure periods.

Fig. 7. Test i) Representative point source pollutant injection location at 0,25,0. Background and intrusion fluorometer traces and synchronous
pressure head at test section.
 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677 675

The injection volume was measured at 8.1 ml and, as can be seen from the fluorometer trace, a peak
concentration of 7.5x10-8 l/l was recorded following the generated pressure transients. The recovered volume was
0.65 ml which equates to 8 % of the initial injection volume. Two additional repeat tests were run with recorded
pollutant ingress volumes of 0.6 ml and 0.65 ml (7% and 8% recovery respectively), showing a high level of
repeatability in the testing.

Fig. 8. First pressure wave generated by instantaneous closure of upstream valve.

An expanded view of the test section pressure trace for the first generated pressure transient from Test i) is
shown in Fig. 8. The red lines indicate the injection start and stop time. The trace shows the initial five second
injection period of point source pollutant, the formation of the transient pressure wave following the instantaneous
closure of the upstream butterfly valve, the time at which the injection process is stopped (t=15 seconds) and the
dissipation of the pressure wave.

Fig. 9. Test ii) Representative point source pollutant injection location at 50,25,0. Background and intrusion fluorometer traces and synchronous
pressure head at test section
676 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677

Fig. 9 shows the recorded data for Test ii) where the point source pollutant was located the same perpendicular
distance away from the pipe as Test i), but moved 50 mm along the pipe, i.e. not directly in front of the leak, at x =
50, y = 25, z = 0 which equates to a Euclidean distance of 56 mm from the leak orifice. It can be seen that the
pressure traces are similar to Test i), however the resulting ingress trace has a smaller peak concentration of
3.1x10-8 l/l. The injection volume was recorded as 8.9 ml, the recovered volume was 0.25 ml which equates to
2.8% of the injection volume. As with Test i), two additional repeat tests were run with recorded pollutant ingress
volumes of 0.28 ml and 0.29 ml (3.1% and 3.2% recovery respectively), again showing good repeatability between
tests.

5. Discussion

It has been shown that under realistic, but extreme, conditions water external to a WDS pipe can be ingressed
through leaks as a result of pressure transients. The pressure transients generated resulted in large negative
pressures, which remain constant at approximately -10 m for approximately 1 second, this is the cavitation pressure
at which point the water vaporises forming cavitation bubbles. Within this paper, results have been presented from
two sets of tests with a contaminant source centred at different locations with respect to the pipe leak. From both
tests, one directly in the leak flow and the other considered to be outside the main leak flow, a volume of pseudo
pollutant has been shown to have entered the test pipe. This is contrary to the perception that only water expelled
from system will re-enter the pipe or if contaminant is intruded it will be expelled on the next positive cycle.
The volume of pollutant that was ingressed had an inverse relationship with distance from the pollutant
injection point, as might be expected. Further testing is necessary to better quantify the relationship between the
location of the pollutant and the amount ingressed, and to fully understand the zone of influence from which
pollutants may be drawn. Such contamination may include pathogenic bacteria and viruses which may be able to
shelter, inhabit and multiply within biofilms which are endemic in water distribution systems.
For each repeat, three pressure transients were generated, the first during the injection of the pollutant. The
downstream fluorometer only recorded one pulse of pollutant, it is considered that this pulse is from the first
generated transient because the time lag between the generation of transients would mean that there would be a gap
to subsequent pulses. This indicates that, in the test case, flows from the leak were able to dilute and flush the
pollutant away from the ingress area before the second and third transients were generated. This does not however
necessarily mean that all pollutants would be automatically flushed away in a live system, the effect of
groundwater flows may serve to renew pollutant in the zone of ingress or small particulate contaminate may be
trapped in this zone.

6. Conclusion

This paper reports on the findings of an experimental investigation assessing the potential for a contaminant
originating external to a pressurised WDS pipe to be drawn into and remain within the system during a transient
event.
The results clearly show that:
• Short duration, oscillating (but extreme) transient pressure events can result in such contaminant
ingress.
• Contaminants can be ingressed from a significant area outside the leak, with the ingress volume
having an inverse relationship with the distance of the contaminant from the leak.
• The leak may tend to flush contaminants away from the leak, but further work is required to fully
understand the zone of influence for ingress and the effects of groundwater flows in presenting
contaminants into the ingress zone.
 S. Fox et al. / Procedia Engineering 70 (2014) 668 – 677 677

This paper conclusively shows, for the first time, for fully representative physical conditions, there is a threat to
potable water quality due to net contaminant ingress and transport during extreme short duration oscillating
pressure transient events within water distribution networks.

Acknowledgements

The work presented in this paper was supported by the EPSRC research grant EP/G015546/1.

References

Clayton, C. R. I. & Van Zyl, J. E. (2007). The Effect of Pressure on Leakage in Water Distribution Systems. Proceedings of the ICE - Water
Management, 160(2), 109–114.
Collins, R., Boxall, J. B., Karney, B. W., Brunone, B. & Meniconi, S. (2012). How Severe Can Transients Be After a Sudden Depressurization?
American Water Works Association, 104(4), 243–251.
Fox, S., Collins, Richard & Boxall, J. (2012). Time Dependent Area of Leaks in MDPE Pipes During Transient Events, in: 11th International
Conference on Pressure Surges, Lisbon, Portugal , 113–125.
Ghidaoui, M. S., Zhao, M., McInnis, D. a. & Axworthy, D. H. (2005). A Review of Water Hammer Theory and Practice. Applied Mechanics
Reviews, 58(1), 49.
Gullick, R W, Lechevallier, M W, Svindland, R. C. & Friedman, M. J. (2004). Occurrence of Transient Low and Negative Pressures in
Distribution Systems. Journal American Water Works Association, 96(11), 52–66.
Hunter, P. R., Chalmers, R. M., Hughes, S. & Syed, Q. (2005). Self-reported Diarrhea in a Control Group: A Strong Association with Reporting
of Low-pressure Events in Tap Water. Clinical infectious diseases : An Official Publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America,
40(4), e32–e34.
Karim, M. R., Abbaszadegan, M. & Lechevallier, M. (2003). Potential for Pathogen Intrusion During Pressure Transients. Journal American
Water Works Association, 95(5), 134–146.
Kirmeyer, G. J., Friedman, M., Martel, K., Howie, D., Lechevallier, M., Abbaszadegan, M., et al. (2001). Pathogen Intrusion Into The
Distribution System. AWWA Research Foundation and the American Water Works Association.
Lechevallier, Mark W, Gullick, Richard W, Karim, M. R., Friedman, M. & Funk, J. E. (2003). The Potential for Health Risks from Intrusion of
Contaminants into the Distribution System from Pressure Transients. Journal of Water and Health, 1(1), 3–14.
Lindley, T. R. & Buchberger, S. G. (2002). Assessing Intrusion Susceptibility in Distribution Systems. Journal American Water Works
Association, 94(6), 66–79.
OFWAT. (2010). Service and Delivery – Performance of the Water Companies in England and Wales 2009-10 Report Supporting Information.
Retrieved from http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/regulating/reporting/rpt_los_2009-10supinfo.pdf

View publication stats