Muramba Phase I-2

EWB PROJECT:
MURAMBA, RWANDA
PHASE I IMPLEMENTATION
Prepared by:
ENGINEERS WITHOUT BORDERS
M1074 ENGINEERING CENTERS BUILDING
1550 Engineering Drive
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53706-1609
Fall 2004
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION........................................................................................... 4
1.1 Site Assessment ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Contacts..................................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Budget and Funding.................................................................................................. 4
1.4 Engineering Components Considered....................................................................... 4
2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT........................... 4
2.1 Professional/Student Chapters Involved ................................................................... 4
2.2 Assigning of Components......................................................................................... 5
3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT ........................................................................................ 6
3.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion .............................................................................. 7
3.2 Implementation Process ............................................................................................ 8
3.2.1 Water Quality................................................................................................... 10
3.3 Materials and Budget .............................................................................................. 11
3.4 Recommendations................................................................................................... 12
3.4.1 Water Collection .............................................................................................. 12
3.4.2 Water Conservation and Remediation ............................................................. 13
4.0 RIVER CROSSING.................................................................................................... 14
4.1 Problem Description ............................................................................................... 14
4.2 Implementation Process .......................................................................................... 15
5.0 LANDSLIDE .............................................................................................................. 17
6.0 PLUMBING................................................................................................................ 18
6.2.1 Repairing and Replacing Leaky Fixtures......................................................... 18
6.2.2 Implementing a New “Flushing” System for Toilets....................................... 18
7.0 SECOND SOURCE.................................................................................................... 19
7.2.1 Survey Description........................................................................................... 20
8.0 SUB-PROJECTS ........................................................................................................ 23
8.1 Sand Filter............................................................................................................... 23
8.2 Water Tower Stand Pipe ......................................................................................... 23
8.3 Pipeline Troubleshooting ........................................................................................ 24
9.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................................... 24
9.1 Travel, Lodging, and Project Contacts ................................................................... 24
9.2 Summary of Component Implementation............................................................... 24
© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 2 of 32

Fall 2004
9.3 Final Budget............................................................................................................ 24

9.4 Lessons Learned and Future Evaluations ............................................................... 24
10.0 References................................................................................................................. 24
11.0 Appendix................................................................................................................... 25
11.1 Contacts................................................................................................................. 25
11.2 Flow Rates ............................................................................................................ 26
11.3 Cross Section Schematic....................................................................................... 31
11.4 Water Infrastructure Schematic ............................................................................ 32

Fall 2004
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
From July 15-31, 2004, a group of eight students, one professor, and one medical doctor
traveled to Muramba to for the Phase I Implementation trip. UW-Madison Professor
Peter Bosscher went on the July trip, as well as the March 2004 site assessment. Goals
for the July trip were gathered from the Site Assessment Report, Assessing Engineering
Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report (www.ewb-usa.org) and from
Bosscher’s expertise. Six projects were selected to complete in July 2004. They are
described in sections 2.0-7.0. However, when the group arrived to Muramba, more
projects were added to the workload (section 8.0). Another EWB group plans to visit
Muramba in January 2005, to install a rainwater catchment scheme to increase water
quantity.
1.1 Site Assessment

Please see the March 2004 Survey Trip at www.ewb-usa.org
1.2 Contacts
Contacts specific to the July 2004 trip are in Appendix 11.1
Additional contacts are in Appendix 8.3 Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba,
Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report.
1.3 Budget and Funding

The Phase I Implementation was paid for through a grant obtained primarily by Peter
Bosscher.
1.4 Engineering Components Considered

The Phase I Implementation team tried to increase quantity and quality of the existing
source (Source Improvement 3.0). Teams were formed to repair the River Crossing (4.0),
Landslide (5.0), and Plumbing (6.0). A second source of water was surveyed (7.0).
Furthermore, once in Muramba, many other problems with the water system including
pope clogs (8.3) and conservation issues (3.4.2) unfolded and were addressed.
2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT
2.1 Professional/Student Chapters Involved

UW-Madison Students comprised the July 2004 trip. CU-Boulder and UW-Madison are
partnering chapters for the Muramba, Rwanda project. No professional chapters were
involved in the Phase I Implementation.

Fall 2004
2.2 Assigning of Components

Leaders were assigned to each of the projects based on desire and skill set. For further
information regarding the projects, the following people should be contacted:
Project Contact(s)
3.0 Source Improvement Tim Miller tdmiller2@wisc.edu
Audrey Miller audreymiller@wisc.edu
4.0 River Crossing Andrew Lockman drew@geology.wisc.edu
5.0 Landslide Perry Cabot pecabot@wisc.edu
6.0 Plumbing Amelia Cosgrove abcosgrove@uwalumni.com
7.0 Second Source Evan Parks ejparks@students.wisc.edu
Matt Bretl mpbretl@wisc.edu
8.0 Sub-Projects Peter Bosscher bosscher@wisc.edu

Fall 2004
3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT

To plan for source improvement, the UW Madison group gathered information from the
March 2004 site assessment report Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba,
Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report, Pete Bosscher, and Andrea Khosropour. The site
assessment report, which can be found at http://www.ewb-usa.org/ explained the “current
water supply is being gathered from six surface water locations into collection boxes.”
The quantity and quality of the water was insufficient to provide water for 1,200 people.
Proceeding under the assumption that all the water collected was surface water, the team
planned to improve the water quality with a spring box, dam, or wellpoint. However,
when the team arrived, it was found that only one of the collections sites gathered surface
water.
When walking to the second source, one comes upon 4 collection boxes. Further up the
hill, there is a 1.25” PVC pipe collecting surface water. Innocent, the water system
maintenance and repairman explained the water flowing into the four collection boxes are
from an underground source. The only surface water collection observed was the 1.25”
PVC pipe sitting in a stream (Images 1 and 2). Images 1 and 2 show the only known
source of contamination in the water system.
Image 1: Surface water collection
Image 2: 1.25” PVC pipe collecting surface water

Fall 2004
3.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion
3.1.1 Quantity
Innocent gathered a team of workers to tap a new water source. The new source
increased the quantity by 3.7 Liters per minute, or 5296 Liters per day. All Flow Rates in
Appendix 11.2 Flow Rates.
3.1.2 Quality
To address the water quality problem, the team cut off the surface water supply collection
as pictured in Images 1 and 2. However, Louis, a maintenance repairman and Innocent’s
protégé, later reconnected the source because the college was not receiving enough water.
For this reason, another trip is necessary in January 2005. The existing water system
cannot supply a sufficient amount of clean water to the 1,200 users.

Fall 2004
3.2 Implementation Process
Innocent was the driving force behind tapping the new source. With the available
resources, he is capable of tapping sources and maintaining the system. The EWB team
serves as a catalyst and resource pool to tap an additional source.
Innocent showed the EWB team a place where he believed a seep could be tapped. Using
pictures, the process is explained.
<Image 3: Digging for seep>

A team of Rwandan workers were selected by
Innocent and John Bosco. The men carried supplies
to the source and used picks to dig the site where
Innocent believed a seep would be found.
The med dug until they hit bedrock. Innocent

excavated the surface with a wire brush until he found
the seep.
<Image 4: Innocent searching for seep>
<Image 5: Digging trench>

The water collected from the seep would need to travel
about 9 feet in galvanized steel piping brought from the
United States across a small drainage. Then the water
would flow underground in PVC pipes and join with the
College main source. Image 5 shows men digging a trench
to lay the PVC pipe.

Fall 2004
A wellpoint brought by the EWB team from the US was placed on the bedrock where the
seep was flowing. The pipe extending out of the page (Image 6) is the galvanized steel
piping.
<Image 6: Placing the Wellpoint> <Image 7: Protecting the Wellpoint>
The water flow from the seep was directed to the wellpoint using clay to form a funnel.
Stones were placed to surround the wellpoint (Image 7) to help keep small particles from
clogging the porous fiberglass surface of the wellpoint.
<Image 8: Covering the Wellpoint>
Plastic was placed over the stones to keep out
small particles and the wellpoint was enclosed
with clay. Soil and rocks were piled on top of
the wellpoint structure.
<Image 9: Covering the Wellpoint>
Image 9 shows the creek crossing. A

mortar and stone wall was later built
around the pipe to prevent animals
from kicking the pipe. The top of the
picture is the source and the bottom is
the other side of the drainage. The
water then flows into a PVC pipe
which is joined with the college
pipeline.

Fall 2004
3.2.1 Water Quality

To physically address the water quality issues, we devised and constructed a filtration
device to be placed in the collection box nearest to the Parish (called CM2 in Assessing
Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report ). We choose this
collection box because it was the last point of entry for inflow and potential contaminants
before the water flowed to the Parish water tower. The filtration device filters out grass,
large sediment, and other particulates, which reduces the probability of potential clogs in
the pipeline that are not easily remedied. Additionally, the filter screens large particles
and sediment that contribute to the turbidity and overall uncleanliness of the water and
improves the aesthetic appeal of the water. A well-point and a series of couplings
comprised the filtration device, pictured below before and after installation.
As water flows through the well point, sediment will accumulate in the screen
enshrouding the point. To ensure that the filtration device functions properly over time,
the screens on the well point must be cleaned periodically to guarantee that there is
sufficient water flow to the users. Such maintenance may necessitate a schedule that
village technicians can follow regularly. If the well-point screen becomes clogged,
causing the filter to not function properly, the flow of water could decrease or even stop
completely, causing even greater water quantity shortfalls. Additionally, the sediment
that accumulates in the collection box should be removed periodically as well.
After placing the filtration device in the collection box and securing it to the outflow
pipe, we observed that the water level in the collection box did not change. This
indicated that the inflow and outflow rates remained constant after the implementation of
the well point. As the screen becomes clogged with sediment, the inflow rate will exceed
the outflow rate and the water level in the collection box will rise.

Fall 2004
3.3 Materials and Budget
Materials for the Source Improvement
Item Units Unit Cost Cost Vendor

Hose/Pipe Adaptor, brass 3/4f x 3/4m x 1/2f 2 1.89 3.78 Farm & Fleet
Pipe, galvanized 1-1/4" x 48" 4 11.99 47.96 Farm & Fleet
Check Valve, Brass, 1-1/4" 2 14.99 29.98 Farm & Fleet
Sprayer Pipe Reducer Coupling, Poly 1-1/2" x
1" 2 4.29 8.58 Farm & Fleet
Sprayer Hose Barb, 1-1/2" 2 1.59 3.18 Farm & Fleet
Reducer Bushing, 1 x 3/4 2 1.49 2.98 Farm & Fleet
Hose Barb, 1-1/2" Thread x 1-1/2" Shank 2 3.59 7.18 Farm & Fleet
Nipple, Galvanized, 1-1/4 x 3 2 1.29 2.58 Farm & Fleet
Cistern Pump, #3 1 55.99 55.99 Farm & Fleet
Steel Post Driver w/ Handle 1 12.99 12.99 Farm & Fleet
Sprayer Pipe Reducer Coupling, Poly 1-1/2" x
1-1/4" 3 4.29 12.87 Farm & Fleet
Check Valve, In-Line, 1-1/4" x 1-1/2" 1 8.79 8.79 Farm & Fleet
Flex Coupling, PVC, 1-1/4" x 1-1/4" 2 1.85 3.7 Farm & Fleet
Flex Coupling, PVC, 1-1/2" x 1-1/4" 2 1.85 3.7 Farm & Fleet
Drive Coupling, 1-1/4" 4 7.29 29.16 Farm & Fleet
Drive Cap 2 6.99 13.98 Farm & Fleet
Pipe Joint Compound w/ Teflon, 4 oz. 1 2.99 2.99 Farm & Fleet
Fertilizer Solution Hose, 1-1/2" x 1" 4 1.39 5.56 Farm & Fleet
Well Point, Fiberglass 60 Gauze, 1-1/4" 2 39.99 79.98 Farm & Fleet
Hose Barb, 1-1/4" Thread x 1-1/2" Shank 2 1.59 3.18 Farm & Fleet
500 Ft Reload Twisted Gold Line Reel Refill 1 6.99 6.99 Farm & Fleet
100 Ct. 21" Glo Orange Marking Flags 1 6.99 6.99 Farm & Fleet
Total 353.09
Note
Not all materials listed were used for the source improvement project. Some supplies
were purchased in Kigali, including PVC piping and assorted couplings. All remaining
supplies were left in Muramba for future use.
Inventory of Remaining Supplies
Item Description Quantity

Hand pump #3 Pitcher pump with lever 1
PVC pipe 63 mm dia. ~ 10 ft.
PVC pipe coupler 63 mm dia. 1
Hose barb 1.25”-1.50” 1
Drive cap 1.25” 1

Fall 2004
Fernco coupler 1.25”-1.25” 1

Galvanized iron coupler 3” 1
Copper check valve 1.25” 2
Caulk gun 1
Nipples 1.25” 2
Reducer coupling 1.50”-1.00” 1
PVC coupling 1.25”-1.00” 2
Female hose adaptor 0.75”-0.75” 2
Ball valve 2” 2
Male PVC coupling 2” 2
Non-collapsing hose Reinforced, 1.5” ~5 ft.
Hose barb 1.50”-1.25”, 90° 1
Hose barb 1.25”-2.00” 1
Fence post driver Weighted 1
Marker flags 100
3.4 Recommendations
3.4.1 Water Collection
An assessment of Muramba’s water resource availability reveals that the current water
resources are still inadequate to meet the consumption needs of Muramba College and the
surrounding schools. Despite tapping into an additional source that provided an
additional flow, the community continues to suffer from a lack of potable water.
Addressing this issue will require tapping into additional groundwater sources while
conserving the water resources now being consumed. A comprehensive water budget
would provide a reasonable estimate of how much water the community uses. Some
factors to consider may include the water usage of the College girls, the water usage for
cooking, and seasonal consumption cycles. As mentioned in Assessing Engineering
Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda: Assessment Trip Report, a number of alternatives may
supplement the current supply. However, not all of the alternatives are feasible.
One possible solution mentioned previously was to increase the diameter of pipe at the
sources that feed the collection boxes. A larger cross-sectional area of pipe would enable
more water to flow into the system. It is not feasible to expand the diameter of the buried
pipes because excavating the collection points would disrupt a stable agriculture above
these points and the gain would be minimal. With the assistance of local experts, we
discovered that all water collection points are underground except for one surface water
source. The only surface water source could be damned to maximize collection.
However, it was evident from the large pools of standing water, which were infested with
insects, that this source may be the sole contaminator of the entire system and may
contribute to the sickness experienced by much of the community.

Fall 2004
Tapping into additional groundwater sources may prove to be a reasonable solution.

Community members are skilled at locating and excavating seepage points that would
provide clean, uncontaminated water. Water collected from these sources could be piped
into existing lines, thereby increasing the overall flow into the system. A possible
drawback to this solution is that over time, the screen enshrouding the well point may
become clogged with particles, rendering the buried well point and line unusable. A
better alternative may be to build spring boxes at the points of seepage. A well point
could be used in conjunction with the spring box to filter large particulates. The
advantage of building a spring box is that technicians will have easy access to the point of
collection to perform routine maintenance.
Installing a roof catchment system may be the most viable solution in increasing the
water supply. As previously discussed in the assessment report, a gutter system could be
fitted to all school buildings to collect rainwater runoff during the wet season. A cistern
or reservoir could be constructed at each building to store the water. The water collected
from the roofs may not be suitable for drinking but could be used for washing and
cooking. Additionally, the reservoirs could be designed to incorporate a filtration
mechanism within the storage tank, providing sufficient filtration to render the water
drinkable. For more details, see Assessing Engineering Solutions for Muramba, Rwanda:
Assessment Trip Report.
3.4.2 Water Conservation and Remediation
A concerted effort to conserve the water that does reach the college is paramount.
Currently, many of the faucets and spigots located throughout Muramba leak or do not
turn off at all. Designing and implementing a faucet that can be manufactured locally or
obtained domestically will be critical in water conservation. It was observed that many
faucets were left running unattended for long periods of time, needlessly drawing down
the amount of water in the storage tanks. A faucet designed with a gravity shutoff would
ensure that water would not be wasted. In essence, the user would have to lift the faucet
to get water. After use, the faucet would ‘fall’ and shutoff automatically.
In conjunction with an improved faucet design, wastewater remediation and runoff

collection may be another alternative to conserving non-potable water. Much water is
wasted as a result of the leaky faucets and spigots. This water could be contained and
redistributed to other areas facing a supply shortage. Alternatively, the wastewater could
be used for irrigation to increase crop yield. A solar pasteurizer could be utilized to treat
this runoff as well as incoming flow.
The success of the aforementioned faucet relies on implementing an educational program

on water use and conservation. It is vital that children and community members alike
understand the importance of shutting off faucets, of conserving the water they do have.
This education, be it formal or informal, could occur through the school system, through
the Parish, or through a local technician.

Fall 2004
4.0 RIVER CROSSING
4.1 Problem Description

At their lowest elevations, the Muramba Parish and Muramba College water supply lines
cross the Rungo River, where they are supported by five columns made of stone and
concrete (Image 12). Here the Rungo River merges with a small tributary, and large
boulders at the confluence direct the main flow to the right side of the channel.
Riverbank erosion had undercut the foundation of one of the support columns, and
threatened its structural integrity (Image 13). Both supply lines are cemented directly to
the column, and if it were to topple they would be severed and the water supply to the
village would be cut off. Due to these serious consequences the column needed to be
reconstructed and strengthened to ensure the water lines continue to serve the
community.
A number of methods were investigated to determine how to best protect the column
from future erosion, including reducing energy by constructing low-head weirs and water
deflection techniques such as stone-filled revetments and gabions, and soil-covered
riprap, among others. Following a site review and an assessment of the available
resources we decided the optimal solution was to create a dry-stone wall upstream and
downstream of the support column, after the base of the support column had been
reconstructed. The project required five days work with a maximum of twenty laborers a
day and two foremen. Also, several students from the vocational school volunteered to
assist in the masonry work.
Image 12: General setting of supply lines as they cross the Rungo River.

Fall 2004
Image 13: Erosion has partially removed the foundation of a support column.

Before the project began a labor crew was selected. The foremen were chosen based on
their previous experience with maintaining the water supply, and they were charged with
gathering the labor crew to minimize the potential of creating social conflict.
The first step in implementing the project was to divert the river away from the support
column so the area could be excavated. This was accomplished by constructing a
channel guide made of rocks and soil which moved the flow away from the column, and
allowed the surrounding area to be cleared of vegetation, soil, and small boulders. The
area was partially dried and large boulders were cemented in place at the base of the
foundation. Then the column was rebuilt and expanded in the upstream direction by 2-3
feet while maintaining form similar to the original structure. Next, a large dry-rock wall
was built upstream and downstream from the column for a length of about two to three
times the maximum channel width. Once the column and riverbank were armored, the
large boulders which had originally directed the river flow into the support column were
moved from the left side of the channel to the right side in order to prevent further
erosion and strengthen the base of the rock wall. The final product is shown in Image 14.

Fall 2004
Image 14: View of strengthened support column, constructed dry-rock walls, and the
boulders moved to the right bank

This project required 20 laborers at $1.50/day, and 2 foremen at $6.00/day. All wages
were paid at the end of the work period. Armoring the foundation required ___ bags of
cement and collecting about 10 drums of sand at approximately $1.00/barrel. The labor
crew used the shovels that were available and a few items purchased in Kigali such as
shovels, sledge hammers, picks, and pry bars.
4.4 Recommendations
The structural stability of the rock wall and support column must be checked during each
visit to Muramba. Because the project was completed during the dry season and with
only minor knowledge of wet season conditions, there remains a possibility that a large
flood event could remove the rip-rap and weaken the supporting column. Also, the
changes in the river geometry altered the natural flow conditions and, in the future, could
affect the support column on the opposite side of the river.
Utilizing local labor for this project was critical to its success, as the laborers and
foremen demonstrated remarkable masonry skill (complicated by working in a river
environment), worked very well as a team, and had unexpected intuition when
constructing the dry wall and moving large rocks. It was apparent that much of the work

Fall 2004
the laborers performed was a teaching opportunity embraced the foremen, and the
laborers learned much during the project. Further, the participation of students from the
vocational school indicated the region has an abundance of well skilled masons and
laborers that should be utilized in future projects.
5.0 LANDSLIDE

The primary water delivery lines for the Muramba Parish and the College of Muramba
are buried approximately 2.5 meters below grade in the clay soils that characterize much
of the Rwandan landscape. These lines lay beneath the trail that links the project site to
the mountain and hillside seeps where the community collects its water. For much of the
distance of the main lines, there sections (~10 -15 m) where slopes are at 90% or greater
and soil cohesiveness is the only force preventing further degradation of the pipe
trenches. Frequent use of the community trails and ground-leveling for agricultural plots
has resulted in the exposure of water lines in various locations. One such location had
degraded to the point of instability and a landslide occurred, exposing approximately 10
m of pipe.

The landslide was repaired with the assistance of EWB students, village children and
following men: John Paul Bazansanga (translator), Vianney Nsengimana (foreman),
Jerihonidasi Ndayamba, Serafe Sindayigaya, Siriyake Bihezande, Innocent
Nsabiyaremye, Peter Ntirubabara, Jean-Baptiste Mubenguka, Jean-Damacene
Ndajambaje, Innocent Harerimana, and Joseph Ntirenganya. Before we began, we
initiated a goat relocation program, which proved to be one of the more complicated
tasks.
Our approach was to first level and compact (gikomeye) the soil (taka) beneath the
exposed pipe (ipombo or itiyo) line using the hoes (isuka) that the men had brought with
them. Secondly, we surrounded the pipe with looser soil to provide a modicum of
bedding. Next, we located a cache of bricks (itafari) that had been abandoned by the land
user whose original excavation had caused the landslide. We were able to use these
bricks to construct a concave retaining wall that stabilized the hillslope and prevented
further degradation. Finally, we applied water (amazi) in order to increase the moisture
content of the compacted soil and improve cohesiveness.

Fall 2004
6.0 PLUMBING
During the assessment trip in March, the water usage of the Muramba schools was
assessed in order to understand the improvements that could be made in water
conservation. It was determined that fixing leaky plumbing fixtures could reduce the
amount of water lost. Also, the toilets in the school bathrooms were not functioning.
Because of that, they had not been flushed recently and many were clogged.

The original goals of this project were to repair or replace leaky faucets and shower
fixtures and implement a new system for flushing toilets in the schools.
6.2.1 Repairing and Replacing Leaky Fixtures

In order to make it possible for the schools to maintain the bathroom fixtures, it was
decided that replacement and repair parts should be procured in country. A brief survey
of the plumbing fixtures was conducted in order to determine the size and type of fixtures
needed. The faucets came in two sizes, ½ inch and ¾ inch. The wash stations inside the
bathrooms used ½ inch fixtures while most outside faucets were 3/4inch. The main type
of faucet was an Italian made spigot (Figure ### I believe Pete has a picture of it on his
computer) The second type of faucet used was a silver Repair parts and supplies were to
be purchased at Sonatubes, a plumbing supply house in Kigali. The team would then
work with Louis, the maintenance man at Muramba college, to repair and install the
fixtures.
Unfortunately, though the fixtures are sold as complete units, it is not possible to buy
repair parts for the fixtures, such as faucet washers, in country. A small number of
complete fixtures were bought to replace fixtures that were missing.
6.2.2 Implementing a New “Flushing” System for Toilets

Repairing toilets in the schools did not seem sustainable because they break easily and
require a (relatively) large amount of water to flush. Instead of fixing the toilets, a
sample of a “bucket flush” system was implemented. This type system is used at the
Maria Goretti, and seems likely to be sustainable at Muramba College as well. One large
barrel was purchased for the school as a sample of how the new system would work.
Further barrels will be purchased by the school. We believe better care will be given to a
system that has been purchased by the people who use it, making it more sustainable.
6.3 Materials and Budget (Audrey, I believe you have the receipts.)
___ ½ inch Italian ___type faucets were purchased for Muramba College and the Maria
Goretti school.
___ 3/4 inch Italian ___type faucets were purchased
1 large barrel was purchased for Muramba College
2? Rolls of silicone plumbing tape were purchased

Fall 2004
6.4 Recommendations
The largest problem of water conservation in Muramba seems to come less from leaking
taps than from taps that have been left open. Because the water supply is capricious, taps
that are not working are left open over buckets. When the water begins to run, the
buckets overflow, wasting water. Conservation education efforts are being made, but a
passive way of ensuring taps are not left open is installing simple gravity closing valves.
In fact this type of tap is considered preferable by many of the local people because it is
easier to use and more robust than their current taps. Unfortunately, the team was unable
to find an example of this type of tap. The taps are stainless steel and tear-dropped
shaped. The taps are also expensive (~$25 US dollars/tap).
It is recommended that future teams concentrate their efforts on designing a gravity

closing faucet that could be manufactured locally. A locally manufactured gravity
closing faucet would not only conserve water, but also allow people to replace and
maintain plumbing fixtures themselves, create local jobs, and possibly even generate
revenue for the village.
7.0 SECOND SOURCE
The villagers of Muramba face chronic water shortages and the water that is available for
consumption is of questionable quality. The low quantity of water is the major inhibitor
in Muramba for improvement in the areas of education, health care, and economic
development. A gravity fed supply of approximately 2/3 L/s provides water for over
9,000 people living on the western side of Muramba, including a secondary boarding
school of 400 students. This water supply is grossly inadequate, and the infrastructure
supplying the water contains leaks and exposed pipes.
During the summer 2004 implementation trip, the EWB-UW team conducted a survey of
the water system from the Muramba Parish church to the Kigali/Gisinyi road. The team
intended to use a theodolite and GPS to gather survey data, but the equipment was lost in
transit and was not recovered until the final day in Muramba. As a result, the team was
forced to use compasses and a marked rope to conduct the topographic survey. This
limited the scope of the survey, but the team was still able to gather valuable topographic
and other data essential for improving the water distribution system.

Fall 2004
7.2.1 Survey Description

The detailed topographic survey covered nearly three kilometers stretching from the T
intersection of the Muramba and Kigali/Gisenyi road to the Muramba Parish. The
general topography of the survey route consists of two U-shaped profiles. This can be
viewed from the appendix 11.3. The following describes each segment of the profile
starting at the Muramba – Kigali/Gisenyi road and ending at the Muramba Parish.
First Segment
The first survey segment begins at the base of the Muramba-Esecom sign (2045m) and
descends to a relative low point at a valve box (1963m). The existing water source enters
Muramba near the Esecom sign (view appendix 11.4 for water infrastructure schematic)
and travels to a collection box. (2049m).
Collection box dividing water between Esecom Village Tap (teardrop

and nearby taps
The collection box (view photo above) divides the water source (2/3 L/s) into two lines;
one line proceeds to a nearby village reservoir, which later feeds a valve box and village
taps (2026m; view photo above), while the second continues towards the relative low
point of the valve box. Plastic pipe is exposed to the surface and foot traffic at two
locations just before the relative low point.
Second Segment
The second survey segment begins at the valve box (1963m) and ascends to the Esecom
collection box (2022m) and Esecom reservoir. This distance covers 676m.

Survey route in direction of Kigali/Gisinyi road
Survey route from Esecom to Kigali/Gisinyi road
The two photos above show this survey segment looking from the direction of Esecom to
the Kigali/Gisinyi road. When the water reaches the Esecom collection box, it is divided
between the Esecom school and the Esecom reservoir. The Esecom school line feeds
three taps, all of which leak profusely. One of these taps is pictured below.
Leaky faucet at Esecom
The Esecom reservoir distributes water into three lines. One line is directed back in the
direction of the Kigali/Gisinyi road to supply taps, while two others run in the direction
of the parish.
Third Segment
The third survey segment descends from the Esecom reservoir (2023m) to the delivery
clinic (1938m) and the proposed AIDS clinic (1934m). There is a large unused 16,000L
reservoir (1975m) midway between the delivery clinic and the Y path junction for
Esecom school. Two lines extend from the Esecom reservoir in the direction of the
Parish. The first line feeds a village tap just below Esecom school, while the second line
Fall 2004
continues along the path past the proposed AIDS clinic and the delivery clinic, eventually
feeding into three taps at a relative low point (1931m). Due to demand and leakage, little
or no water fills this line, leaving the delivery clinic and proposed AIDS clinic without
water. Three taps connected in series at the relative low point are without faucets and
water periodically drips out of the first tap.
Fourth Segment
The fourth survey segment begins at the relative low point of the three taps (1931m) and
ascends to the collection box just outside the Parish gates. The segment covers a distance
of 300m and does not contain any functioning water infrastructure from the original 2/3
L/s source.
(Peter is going to add a section here about his discussion with Saidi, community
leader)
Water Source A note: (peter, stop 1)
The first untapped water source (2145m) is located several hundred meters from the road
(direction Gisenyi). The area is sparsely populated, and is located either on or adjacent to
government land in Gaseke District. The water flows at an estimated rate (peter’s orange
book=3/8L/s) from a spring enclosing a depression of approximately 1.5m in diameter.
Water Source A
Currently, a plastic pipe inserted into the hillside collects a portion of the spring water.
Water flows unrestricted out of this pipe and a small population living in the immediate
vicinity depends on this source for their daily needs.
Water Source B note: (peter, stop 2)
Multiple springs are located at (2153m) in (orange notebook) District. The area is
unpopulated and owned by the government. Water continuously seeps out of at least four
springs.

Springs of Water Source B
The vegetation in the photo above shows the abundance of spring water in the immediate
vicinity. A metal pipe is inserted into a spring on the hillside and has an estimated flow
rate of (orange book). The slope grade is far steeper than that of water source A, and this
must be taken it account during spring box design and construction.

The survey materials consisted of two Brunton compasses and a fifty meter rope.
7.4 Recommendations
The current water supply for western Muramba is grossly insufficient, providing per
capita less than seven liters of water per day. In order to improve the situation, it is
necessary to tackle both water supply and conservation issues. Thus, adding the new
sources described above into the existing water infrastructure will help alleviate water
shortages. However, adding new capacity alone is not a complete solution. Numerous
leaky faucets and other infrastructure weaknesses such as exposed plastic piping threaten
the viability of the system. As a result, new water sources must be completed in
conjunction with faucet and infrastructure improvements. To ensure sustainability, the
faucet and other water infrastructure improvements must be made in close consultation
with Saidi, the water authority, and the administrators of Esecom, the secondary boarding
school.
8.0 SUB-PROJECTS
8.1 Sand Filter
8.2 Water Tower Stand Pipe

Fall 2004
8.3 Pipeline Troubleshooting

Peter Bosscher and Perry Cabot spent an afternoon troubleshooting various problems that
they surmised after seeing that the delivery of water to the Muramba Parish and the Maria
Goretti School had not significantly improved, despite the addition of a new source. The
Parish water tank has several gate valves that can be used to redirect the flow of water.
This system is not complicated, but future teams will need to have at least one person
who fully understands how the tank is operated.
After witnessing the water tank refill through the exit standpipe, we determined that
below grade line which connected the elevated Parish tank to the buried concrete Goretti
tank (approx. 5 meter away) was clogged. Innocent Kambanda led a team of workers
into the evening using pipe wrenches (urufunguza) and hacksaws (scie à métaux) to open
the pipe and remove the clog. Future workers should plan on screening the standpipe
inside the Parish tank to prevent further clogs from occurring.
9.0 SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

9.1 Travel, Lodging, and Project Contacts
9.2 Summary of Component Implementation
9.3 Final Budget
9.4 Lessons Learned and Future Evaluations
10.0 References
Water for the World; “Maintaining Intakes: Technical Note No. RWS. 1.O.2;
www.lifewater.org

Fall 2004
11.0 Appendix
11.1 Contacts
Professor Peter Bosscher bosscher@wisc.edu
Student Team:
Matt Bretl mpbretl@wisc.edu

Perry Cabot pecabot@wisc.edu
Amelia Cosgrove abcosgrove@uwalumni.com
Andrew (Andy) Griggle griggle@hotmail.com
Andrew (Drew) Lockman drew@geology.wisc.edu
Audrey Miller audreymiller@wisc.edu
Tim Miller tdmiller2@wisc.edu
Evan Parks ejparks@wisc.edu

11.2 Flow Rates
Flow Flow Flow Flow
Time Time Volume Rate Rate Rate Rate
Collection Box Pipe Run.Trial (s) (min) (L) (L/min) (gal/min) (L/day) (gal/day)
College Collection Box

1
Inflow Pipe
length: 39.5" 1 1.10 14.56 0.24 4.25 17.51 4.63 25219.78 6663.09
width: 39.5" 1.20 14.37 0.24 4.25 17.75 4.69 25553.24 6751.19
height: 51" 1.30 13.68 0.23 4.25 18.64 4.92 26842.11 7091.71
height of overflow: 31.5" 1.40 13.67 0.23 4.25 18.65 4.93 26861.74 7096.89
max capacity: 805 L 1.50 13.86 0.23 4.25 18.40 4.86 26493.51 6999.61
outflow pipe 3.5" OD 3"
ID 1.60 13.52 0.23 4.25 18.86 4.98 27159.76 7175.63
2.10 14.32 0.24 4.00 16.76 4.43 24134.08 6376.24

2.20 13.48 0.22 4.00 17.80 4.70 25637.98 6773.58
2.30 13.69 0.23 4.00 17.53 4.63 25244.70 6669.67
3.10 20.52 0.34 4.00 11.70 3.09 16842.11 4449.70

3.20 21.80 0.36 4.00 11.01 2.91 15853.21 4188.43
Average 15.22 0.25 4.14 16.78 4.43 24167.47 6385.07
Inflow Pipe
2 1.10 64.02 1.07 2.90 2.72 0.72 3913.78 1034.02
1.20 84.32 1.41 4.00 2.85 0.75 4098.67 1082.87
1.30 92.48 1.54 4.00 2.60 0.69 3737.02 987.32
2.10 19.86 0.33 4.00 12.08 3.19 17401.81 4597.57

2.20 19.42 0.32 4.00 12.36 3.27 17796.09 4701.74
Fall 2004
Flow Flow Flow Flow

2.30 17.87 0.30 4.00 13.43 3.55 19339.68 5109.56
2.40 22.45 0.37 4.00 10.69 2.82 15394.21 4067.16
Average 45.77 0.76 3.84 8.10 2.14 11668.75 3082.89
Total Average 24.89 6.57 35836.22 9467.96
College Collection Box

2
Inflow Pipe
length: 38" 1 1.10 288.61 4.81 4.00 0.83 0.22 1197.46 316.37
width: 38"
height: 48" 2.10 329.00 5.48 4.00 0.73 0.19 1050.46 277.53
height of overflow: 34"
height of outflow: 3.5" Average 308.81 5.15 4.00 0.78 0.21 1123.96 296.95
max capacity: 804.5 L
Inflow Pipe
2 1.10 25.00 0.42 4.50 10.80 2.85 15552.00 4108.85
1.20 23.86 0.40 4.50 11.32 2.99 16295.05 4305.17
1.30 24.21 0.40 4.50 11.15 2.95 16059.48 4242.93
2.10 20.00 0.33 4.00 12.00 3.17 17280.00 4565.39

2.20 20.00 0.33 4.00 12.00 3.17 17280.00 4565.39
Average 22.61 0.38 4.30 11.45 3.03 16493.31 4357.54
Inflow Pipe
3 1.10 32.68 0.54 4.50 8.26 2.18 11897.18 3143.25
1.20 32.86 0.55 4.50 8.22 2.17 11832.01 3126.03
1.30 33.42 0.56 4.50 8.08 2.13 11633.75 3073.65

Fall 2004
Flow Flow Flow Flow

Average 32.99 0.55 4.50 8.19 2.16 11787.65 3114.31
Total Average 20.42 5.40 29404.92 7768.80
New College Source

Outflow 1.10 15.61 0.26 1.00 3.84 1.02 5534.91 1462.33
1.20 16.02 0.27 1.00 3.75 0.99 5393.26 1424.90
1.30 15.68 0.26 1.00 3.83 1.01 5510.20 1455.80
2.10 364.12 6.07 20.00 3.30 0.87 4745.69 1253.81
Average 3.68 0.97 5296.02 1399.21

Parish Collection Box 1
length: 26.25"
width: 27"
Inflow Pipe
height: 40.25" 1 1.10 297.56 4.96 4.50 0.91 0.24 1306.63 345.21
overflow height 1: 32.25"
overflow height 2: 31.5" 2.10 67.34 1.12 1.00 0.89 0.24 1283.04 338.98
overflow pipe 1 2" OD
overflow pipe 2 2.25" OD Average 182.45 3.04 2.75 0.90 0.24 1294.83 342.10
outflow pipe 2" OD
Inflow Pipe
2 1.10 15.46 0.26 4.50 17.46 4.61 25148.77 6644.33
1.20 23.87 0.40 4.50 11.31 2.99 16288.23 4303.36
1.30 22.09 0.37 4.50 12.22 3.23 17600.72 4650.13
1.40 21.58 0.36 4.50 12.51 3.31 18016.68 4760.02
1.50 16.96 0.28 4.50 15.92 4.21 22924.53 6056.68

Fall 2004
Flow Flow Flow Flow

2.10 21.36 0.36 4.50 12.64 3.34 18202.25 4809.05
2.20 20.09 0.33 4.50 13.44 3.55 19352.91 5113.05
2.30 20.27 0.34 4.50 13.32 3.52 19181.06 5067.65
Average 20.21 0.34 4.50 13.36 3.53 19238.00 5082.70
Inflow Pipe
3 1.10 41.30 0.69 4.50 6.54 1.73 9414.04 2487.20
1.20 39.42 0.66 4.50 6.85 1.81 9863.01 2605.82
1.30 39.95 0.67 4.50 6.76 1.79 9732.17 2571.25
2.10 42.40 0.71 4.50 6.37 1.68 9169.81 2422.67
Average 40.22 0.67 4.50 6.63 1.75 9544.76 2521.73
Total Average 20.89 5.52 30089.39 7949.64
Parish Collection Box 2

length: 23"
Inflow Pipe
width: 23" 1
height: 41"
Inflow Pipe
outflow pipe 3" OD 2
Spring Box in Ravine

outflow pipe 2.5" OD
Outflow
Angle Box Pipe 1.10 31.27 0.52 4.50 8.63 2.28 12433.64 3284.98

Fall 2004
Flow Flow Flow Flow

Length: 18"
Width: 19"
Height: 19" Inflow Pipe 1.10 18.84 0.31 4.50 14.33 3.79 20636.94 5452.30
outflow pipe 2" OD 1.20 18.45 0.31 4.50 14.63 3.87 21073.17 5567.55
inflow pipe 2.5" OD 1.30 18.45 0.31 4.50 14.63 3.87 21073.17 5567.55
inflow pipe height 7.5"
Average 18.58 0.31 4.50 14.53 3.84 20925.73 5528.59

Fall 2004
11.3 Cross Section Schematic

Fall 2004
11.4 Water Infrastructure Schematic

Muramba Phase I-2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Muramba Phase I-2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EWB PROJECT:

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 2 of 32

9.3 Final Budget............................................................................................................ 24

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 3 of 32

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Site Assessment

1.3 Budget and Funding

1.4 Engineering Components Considered

2.0 STUDENT/PROFESSIONAL EWB CHAPTER INVOLVEMENT

2.1 Professional/Student Chapters Involved

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 4 of 32

2.2 Assigning of Components

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 5 of 32

3.0 SOURCE IMPROVEMENT

Image 1: Surface water collection

Image 2: 1.25” PVC pipe collecting surface water

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 6 of 32

3.1 Quantity and Quality Discussion

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 7 of 32

3.2 Implementation Process

<Image 3: Digging for seep>

The med dug until they hit bedrock. Innocent

<Image 4: Innocent searching for seep>

<Image 5: Digging trench>

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 8 of 32

<Image 9: Covering the Wellpoint>

Image 9 shows the creek crossing. A

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 9 of 32

3.2.1 Water Quality

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 10 of 32

3.3 Materials and Budget

Materials for the Source Improvement

Item Units Unit Cost Cost Vendor

Inventory of Remaining Supplies

Item Description Quantity

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 11 of 32

Fernco coupler 1.25”-1.25” 1

3.4.1 Water Collection

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 12 of 32

Tapping into additional groundwater sources may prove to be a reasonable solution.

3.4.2 Water Conservation and Remediation

In conjunction with an improved faucet design, wastewater remediation and runoff

The success of the aforementioned faucet relies on implementing an educational program

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 13 of 32

4.0 RIVER CROSSING

4.1 Problem Description

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 14 of 32

4.2 Implementation Process

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 15 of 32

4.3 Materials and Budget

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 16 of 32

5.1 Problem Description

5.2 Implementation Process

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 17 of 32

6.2 Implementation Process

6.2.1 Repairing and Replacing Leaky Fixtures

6.2.2 Implementing a New “Flushing” System for Toilets

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 18 of 32

It is recommended that future teams concentrate their efforts on designing a gravity

7.0 SECOND SOURCE

7.1 Problem Description

7.2 Implementation Process

© Engineers Without Borders – USA. All Rights Reserved Page 19 of 32

7.2.1 Survey Description