Los Quiscamotes Water System

FINAL REPORT
TEAM: JEAN JANVIER, HALEY KUJAWA, BIANCA PINTO, JASON WILKINSON
ADVISORS: DR. BRIAN BENHAM
CLIENT: MR. DAVID MCCANN (NLCF)

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGIAL SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

1
Table of Contents
WEFTEC Entry Form ...................................................................................................................................... 4
WEFTEC Abstract Form ................................................................................................................................. 5
Summary of Project Team Effort .................................................................................................................. 6
Section 1: Project Description ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.1 Project Background ............................................................................................................................. 6
1.2 Statement of Design Problem ............................................................................................................. 7
Section 2: Design Process ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.1 Water Supply Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 8
2.1.1 Rainwater Harvesting ................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.2 Spring Box .................................................................................................................................. 10
2.1.3 Groundwater Well ..................................................................................................................... 10
2.2 Disinfection System Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 10
2.2.1 Chlorine Disinfection .................................................................................................................. 11
2.2.2 Solar disinfection........................................................................................................................ 12
2.2.3 Membrane Disinfection ............................................................................................................. 12
2.2.4 Biosand Filtration ....................................................................................................................... 12
Section 3: Description of Recommended Design Solution ......................................................................... 13
3.1 Design Standards .............................................................................................................................. 14
3.2 Improved Spring Box ......................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Solar Powered Pump......................................................................................................................... 16
3.4 Biosand Filtration and Storage Units ................................................................................................ 17
3.4.1 Biosand Filter Dimensions .......................................................................................................... 18
3.4.2 Head Loss and Storage ............................................................................................................... 20
3.5 Cost ................................................................................................................................................... 20
Section 4: Site Visit and Future Recommendations .................................................................................... 21
4.1 Site Visit............................................................................................................................................. 21
4.2 Future Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 22
Section 5: Supporting Documentation........................................................................................................ 23
5.1. Biosand head loss calculations......................................................................................................... 23
5.2 Determining the Amount of Power Needed for Pumping ................................................................ 23
5.3 Determining the Amount of Power That Needs to Be Stored: ......................................................... 25
5.3 Determining the Amount of Batteries Needed:................................................................................ 25
2
Section 6: Acknowledgement and References ........................................................................................... 26
6.1 Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................... 26
6.2 References ........................................................................................................................................ 26

3
WEFTEC Entry Form

4
WEFTEC Abstract Form

5
Summary of Project Team Effort

Section 1: Project Description

1.1 Project Background

The worlds population is expected to reach 9.7 billion people by 2050 (UN DESA, 2015).
The World Health Organization (WHO) states that 768 million people do not have access to an
improved source of drinking water, and 185 million use untreated surface water to meet their water
needs (WHO, 2016). WHO states that the minimum quantity of drinking water per person is 20
liters per capita per day (Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 2006).

A proper source of clean, potable water paired with proper sanitation education is important
to prevent waterborne diseases. In many cases these diseases disproportionately affect children.
Lack of sanitation, proper hygiene, and clean drinking water kills about 5.9 million children under
five years of age annually (WHO/UNICEF, 2015). This is a prevailing issue in 48 of the least
developed countries (WHO, 2016). Most of the deaths are due to cholera, diarrhea, dysentery,
hepatitis A, typhoid and polio. These are preventable diseases, and many can be eradicated with
proper water supply and sanitation (WHO, 2016).

Los Quiscamotes, is a small community of approximately 300 people located just east of
Danli in Honduras. The location coordinates of the community are detailed in table 1, and shown
relatively in figure 1. The distance from the entrance of the community of Los Quiscamotes and
the handpump location (centralized area) is estimated to be 3 km up hill. The Honduras senior
design team is working along with Mr. David McCann, staff member from New Life Christian
Fellowship (NLCF), to provide a safe drinking water source to a community in Danli, Honduras.
This report provides details of a design developed by the team to provide a safe water solution to
the community.

6
Table 1. Locations of different points of interest in Los Quiscamotes

Point of Interest Coordinates

Approximate Spring Location 14 2'18.32"N 8633'11.92"W

General Location of Los Quiscamotes 14 2'14.07"N 8633'12.57"W

Iglesia Gran Comision Danl 14 0'56.08"N 8634'23.66"W

Figure 1. Location of Los Quiscamotes. The right figure illustrates the relative locations of the
spring and handpump in relation to the entrance to the community and the city of Danli.

1.2 Statement of Design Problem

In 2014, a pumped well was installed by Texas Water Mission (texaswatermission.org) to

provides potable water for the community Los Quiscamotes. The project was funded by Adventist
Development and Relief Agency (ADRA). However, this well has since become contaminated
because of the placement of a nearby latrine. Subsequently, people reported becoming ill after
using this water source and began using a nearby spring for their domestic needs, including for
drinking water. Since then, the community has resorted to accessing water via either the nearby
spring and surface water source, or by purchasing from private companies. Both fresh water
sources are in a steep ravine with an elevation drop of up to 9.5 m. This makes the sources not
only difficult to access but also physically dangerous, especially when carrying 20 L water-filled
containers. In addition, these sources are unprotected, and both are known to be contaminated with
E. coli, a common fecal coliform. The idea for this project came from our client, David McMann,

7
who travels to Danli regularly and was made aware of the water supply and sanitation issues. The
project aims to evaluate alternative water supply and disinfection options based on the
community's needs and desires, and develop a solution that can be centered around the needs of
the community.

Section 2: Design Process

The team evaluated the water supply and sanitation systems separately. To meet the
specifications given by our client, the constraints and criteria listed in table 2 were used to develop
a weighting system for the analysis of potential solutions. The relative weights and appropriate
scoring of each alternative is shown in table 3 and 4.

Table 2. Constraints and Criteria

Constraints Criteria
Community ownership Cost < $10,000
Locally accessible building materials Supply at least 6,000 L/day
Durability
Water supply must be coupled with disinfection system

During the decision process, the team made necessary assumptions regarding water quality
data and community. It was assumed all sources of water had the same contamination level. It was
assumed the people of Los Quiscamotes have access to all needed materials in the nearby city of
Danli for the various design solutions. Examples of types of materials needed would be PVC
piping, concrete, rebar, and/or large poly tanks. Many of these assumptions are based on research
comparing other similar water supply and sanitation projects in rural communities.

2.1 Water Supply Alternatives

The design constraints taken into consideration included locally accessible construction
materials and the opportunity for community ownership. Currently, community involvement is
low, and therefore the system implementation and maintenance should be designed to enhance
community involvement and create a sense of ownership of the system. In evaluating design
alternatives, it is imperative the selected design could be implementable within a short amount of

8
time, and the design should be resilient to different unforeseen circumstances, such as drought or
flooding. The system also needs to be durable and energy efficient. A primary criterion set by our
client was that the overall project needed to cost less than $10,000 because the project will be
funded through donations. Additionally, the source had to supply water for a minimum of 300
people. The water supply weighting process is broken down in table 3.

Table 3. Water Supply Solutions Decision Matrix

Design requirements and Percent Spring development and Existing

Rain cisterns
criteria Weight improved access Contaminated Well

Cost 20 5 8 10

Locally accessible materials 15 10 10 10

Community ownership potential 15 5 9 8

Low training and maintenance 15 7 8 6

Resiliency (contamination, 10 3 8 6
supply failure,
drought resistance)

Durability/lifespan 10 8 8 7

Energy requirements 10 10 10 7

Time to implement design 5 7 6 10

Score 6.75 8.55 8.10

2.1.1 Rainwater Harvesting

The first alternative is a rainwater harvesting system that uses cisterns as a means of
collection. A rainwater collection system consists of an adequate impermeable roof for collection,
some form of storage and adequate piping. During the storage of collected rainwater, there is
opportunity to further treat the water. These systems are simple to install and are low maintenance
(Gonzalez, 2002). The school in Los Quiscamotes is the most suitable structure to use as a
centralized rainwater collection option. The area of the school roof is approximately 83 m2, and
with the average annual rainfall of 91.1 mm (Climate Data Organization). A basic rainwater
collection system on the newly constructed school in Los Quiscamotes would supply only 252 L
per day, assuming a constant rate of rainfall, which we know is not the case. Storage would have
9
to be managed to maximize the amount of rainfall available. With rainwater collection systems,
some fraction of the initial roof runoff cannot be used because it may contain contaminants. This
further limit the amount of rainwater than can be harvested. The final design would consist of a
catchment area using the school roof, piping, and storage system. Based on our design alternative
assessment, the rainwater harvesting solution ranked well below the other two alternatives.

2.1.2 Spring Box

The second alternative involves further developing the existing spring through the
construction of a spring box. A spring box is an enclosed area designed to capture water from an
upwelling spring, and provide protection to the water source. At a minimum, the spring should
provide 7.5 liters of water per minute. Developing the spring will involve excavating the slope
uphill from the spring, installing a rock bed foundation for the spring box, building the spring box,
building a collection wall, and installing a pipe that directs the spring water into a spring box
(Swistock, 2016).

2.1.3 Groundwater Well

The third design involves using the existing contaminated well as the water supply system.
If the well was running constantly, given the flow rate provided by Texas Water Mission, a
theoretical maximum of 21,800 liters per day could be supplied if the necessary groundwater was
available. Because the hand pump well is already constructed and in place, a design for a water
supply would not be required. However, the implementation of a disinfection system and
mitigation plan to prevent further contamination would be needed. It is important to note that the
citizens in the community have become ill from using the well; thus, users can find this source of
water dubious which in turn reduces the acceptability of this solution.

2.2 Disinfection System Alternatives

For the disinfection system, in addition to the constraints and criteria listed in table 2, water
quality standards were used as part of the weighting process. To reduce the exposure to pathogens,
the efficiency of bacterial, virus, and protozoa removal was aligned to WHO standards (WHO,
2006). The turbidity of the source also impacts bacterial treatment removal effectiveness. Higher
turbidity increases the probability of waterborne disease outbreaks and gastroenteritis. Therefore,
10
the systems aimed to reduce turbidity levels to meet recommended drinking water quality. The
final aspect considered to be an important feature of the disinfection solutions was residual
treatment, or the ability to treat the water sometime after the initial disinfection. Residual treatment
addresses the likelihood of recontamination, which happens frequently when water is mishandled
or inappropriate hygiene habits are used. Breakdown of the weighting criteria and process is
detailed explained in table 4.

Table 4. Disinfection Solutions Decision Matrix

Design Requirements and Percent Chlorine Solar Sand Membrane

criteria Weight Disinfection Disinfection filtration filtration

Bacteria removal 15 10 5 10 10
efficiency

Viruses/protozoa removal 15 8 4 9 10
efficiency

Turbidity removal 15 1 1 8 9

Cost 15 6 8 7 4

Locally accessible 10 10 10 10 5
materials

Training and maintenance 10 9 7 6 4

Durability/lifespan 10 9 6 8 4

Safety 5 8 7 10 10

Residual Treatment 5 10 1 1 1

Score - 7.45 5.40 8.05 6.80

2.2.1 Chlorine Disinfection

The chlorine disinfection alternative would use the addition of powder, tablet, or liquid
chlorine to kill bacteria, viruses and most protozoa. One option considered was to train the
community on chlorine dosage so that people can do it individually. The second chlorine
alternative was to develop a centralized system which would dose the water source without any
electrical energy input. A good example of such system would be the chlorination system proposed
by Dr. Amy Pickering of Stanford University (Ritcher and Pickering, 2013). The Stanford design

11
delivers a dose of chlorine for a certain volume of water flowing through the wellhead. This
disinfection system was specifically for contaminated hand pumps in developing countries.

2.2.2 Solar disinfection

Solar disinfection has been used since 1980s, and uses UV radiation to kill microbes
(Center of Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). A common method is putting the contaminated
water in plastic bottles and setting them on a rooftop or an area where they are directly exposed to
adequate sunlight to kill viruses, bacteria, and protozoa by DNA damage and thermal inactivation.
The exposure time to UV-rays can vary from 6 hours to 2 days based on weather conditions and
solar insolation. In addition, the cost of implementation is relatively low if recycled bottles are
used. The total amount of water that can be treated per bottle is 0.3 to 2 L per bottle. This limits
the amount of water that can be treated at once. In case of high levels of turbidity, the water should
be pretreated to remove sediments. Pretreatment adds to the overall cost of this alternative (Center
of Disease Control and Prevention, 2011).

2.2.3 Membrane Disinfection

Membrane filtration uses a membrane with micro-pores to physically remove bacteria,

microorganisms, particulates, and organic matter. This system can be designed to be coupled with
other disinfection solutions to increase the efficiency, such as pretreatment of the water with
chlorination or pairing with nano-filtration and reverse osmosis. These systems have typically only
been designed as short-term solutions in developing countries. The teams alternatives analysis
ranked membrane filtration third of the four possible alternatives. Thus, this alternative was not
considered as a viable solution for the community of Los Quiscamotes.

2.2.4 Biosand Filtration

Biosand filtration systems are an effective, low-technology disinfection and turbidity

reduction solution for treating drinking water. The removal rate of these systems for virus, bacteria
and protozoa ranges from 85 99.99%. The basic components of a biosand filter are fine sand,
coarse sand and gravel. These components are contained in some sort of housing (typically a
cement basin), where gravel is located at the bottom, coarse sand in the middle, and fine sand at

12
the top. The three main processes that occur within a biosand filter are mechanical filtration,
predation of contaminants by bacteria, and natural die-off (Collin, 2009).

Section 3: Description of Recommended Design Solution

Based on the analysis of the potential solutions, the most viable alternative for Los
Quiscamotes water supply project was to develop the existing spring and improve the collection
access. In addition, we propose to install a biosand filtration unit with an integrated storage
reservoir. In this system, the teams initial design relied on gravity to deliver spring water to the
filtration and storage unit. However, after the March 2017 site visit, the design was modified to
include a pump to deliver the water from the spring box to the filtration and storage unit to
overcome the head difference of approximately 4.04 m. The Producers of Renewable Energy
Honduran Association (AHPER), state that Honduras is aiming to have a total of 66% of their
energy provided by clean energy sources by 2022. Therefore, a solar powered pump was
implemented in the design to help meet Honduran goals and increase the sustainability of the
system.

The water will enter the spring box, and immediately be pumped to the biosand filtration
unit. Here, the water head provides enough pressure to force the water through the filter bed into
the storage unit. Figure 2 is a profile view of the proposed system for the community of Los
Quiscamotes. The piping system, which consists of 3 inch nominal PVC pipe, was chosen to be
underground to prevent damage from locals interact with the system as well as to preserve the
existing surface water. The location chosen for this system allows for easy access to the collection
pipe since there is a road on the left side of the biosand filter and storage tank unit with an elevation
change less than one meter.

13
 Figure 2. Profile view of the proposed system looking downstream.

3.1 Design Standards

The proposed system is designed to meet the WHO drinking water standards which state
that the water quality of a system should have no detectible E. coli or thermal coliform bacteria in
a 100mL sample (WHO, 2016). In addition, the water supply system should supply a minimum of
20 liters of potable water per capita per day based on consumption estimates cited in a design
standards report by Catholic Relief Services following USAID protocol (Warner and Serment,
2005). Therefore, the proposed system would supply a minimum 6,000 liters per day. Finally, the
design biosand filtration unit adhered to the Great Lake Upper Mississippi River Basin
(GLUMRB) structural standards. The section used was 4.3.4.3 which has structural detail and
hydraulics for slow sand filter systems. The following specifications were followed:
a cover
headroom to permit normal movement by operating personnel for scraping and sand
removal operations
adequate access hatches and access ports for handling of sand
an overflow at the maximum filter water level
protection from freezing

14
3.2 Improved Spring Box

Spring protection is an important step in the proposed design as it prevents contamination

of the spring water. The proposed design is a concrete box structure as shown below in Figure 3,
with a stainless-steel cover, an overflow and an outlet pipe which connects to the biosand filtration
unit. The overflow would be directed to the adjacent surface water source to not entirely waste
excess spring water. The outlet pipe is designed to have a stainless-steel screen with 1/8 inch holes,
to prevent large debris from entering the biosand filter unit. The stainless-steel cover allows for
access into the box for maintenance and monitoring of water quality and pump performance. The
cover is intended to have a lock on it to prevent unauthorized users from accessing the spring, as
well as to prevent people from reaching into the spring and contaminating the water. The existing
spring is an artesian spring which the three main veins are located 1.10 m below the ground. The
material surrounding the veins is rock. The spring box is intended to be 90 cm above ground and
30 cm below.

Figure 3. Design and dimensions of spring box.

15
3.3 Solar Powered Pump

The solar powered-pump consists of a photovoltaic array, which is made up of multiple

solar cells that take in energy from the sun. A lead-acid battery is connected to store solar power
to supply the pump when the solar array is not producing power. The solar array may not produce
power during nighttime, overcast weather, or during maintenance. Many solar arrays come in kits
that can be purchased and assembled quite easily. With the kits that we have chosen, one 15 x 7
cm solar cell can provide 1.8 watts of power (ML Solar, 2017). The power required to power the
pump was used to calculate the required size of the solar array. Our solar array also contains a
single-axis tracking mechanism that can be used to rotate the panel throughout the day to ensure
that the panel takes in an optimal amount of energy from the sunlight. The pump that was chosen
also contains a vertical float switch, which will allow it to turn off once a certain level of water is
reached in the storage tank. Additionally, a main switch can limit the power output to the pump
to prevent the pumps motor from running faster than its maximum rated speed (USDA-
NRCS,2010).

We calculated the total dynamic head to find the amount of energy that the pump will need
to produce. Since our system is not pressurized, this value comes primarily come from the
elevation differences, as well as a negligible amount of friction losses from the pipe, valve and
elbows. The total dynamic head needed to pump water into the filtration system from the spring
box is about 4.04 meters of head. This amounts to providing 6.06 watts of power to the system.
This calculation is shown in the appendix.

We chose the pump for our design based on the head needed for pumping as well as our
flowrate. Comparing different pump performance curves, we found a pump that will be able to
pump enough water at the given flow rate that is needed (Power Equipment Direct, 2017). Since
the power that that is drawn by the pump is known, this can be used to calculate the size of the
solar array. Based on the calculations, we determined that at least 418 cells are needed in the solar
array to supply adequate power to the pump. Since the solar cells from this company come in kits
that have a specified number of cells, the kit that has 550 cells will be used, which will provide 1
kw of power (ML Solar, 2017). Two lead-acid batteries are needed be able to supply the pump
with power when the solar panel is not. Additionally, since the pump that was chosen uses 115V,

16
an inverter will be needed to change the pumps voltage from 115 volts to 12 volts to allow the
pump to be compatible with the solar array and the battery.

Since this system will be coupled with batteries, the amount of batteries needed was
determined. The most common types of batteries that are used with photovoltaic cells are lead-
acid batteries, which can store charge produced by an external source. A 12-volt battery must be
used, since this is the industry standard for solar array coupling (Solar Direct, 2016). Due to the
amount of power that needs to be stored and the amount of power that the battery can stored, two
12-volt batteries will be used in this design. These calculations are also shown in the appendix. It
is important to note that these calculations are based on the components chosen assuming it is
available near Los Quiscamotes. If different batteries, pumps and solar array type are chosen, then
the specifications for those devices can be used in carrying out the same calculations.

3.4 Biosand Filtration and Storage Units

For the biosand filtration unit design, an 11.4 L/min flow rate was determined from the
field visit to Los Quiscamotes during March of 2017. The biosand filtration unit is designed to
remove pathogens and impurities through sedimentation, straining, adsorption to the sand
particles, and chemical and bacterial processes (Visscher, 1987). Biosand filters are very cost
effective and efficient, and the effluent from the filter should be almost virtually free of pathogens.
Based on literature of similar slow sand filters, the removal of the designed filter should be 99.5%
for coliforms and 39% for turbidity (Barrett, 1991). We assumed the influent waters were not
turbid because it comes from a groundwater source, and therefore removal of turbidity was not a
major concern in the design. The dimensions of the biosand were based off the guidelines in table
5.

Table 5. Design guidelines for slow sand filters

Filtration Tank components Dimension and units

Supernatant water layer 1.0-1.5 m

Minimum thickness of filter bed 0.5 m

Design period 10-15 years

Thickness of walls 0.2 -0.4 m

17
Table 5. Design guidelines for slow and filters continues

Filtration Tank components Dimension and units

Depth of gravel 0.61 m

Hydraulic loading rate 1.49-7.02 m3/m2/day

Headloss permitted 46-203 cm

Uniformity coefficient 3.0 or less

Effective size 0.2 mm - 0.4 mm

3.4.1 Biosand Filter Dimensions

The team accounted for supplying the current community population of 300, plus an
anticipated growth rate estimated with a growth factor of 1.6 over a 10-yr design life-span. The
future population is projected to be 342 people. The filter area was determined based on the future
population water demand at 40 L/capita/day and a filtration rate of 0.1 m/h (Visscher, 1987). The
total filter area is 6.0 m2, and is divided in two identical filter cells. This was done to ensure the
system could continually treat water even when maintenance of the biolayer was occurring. The
biosand filters did not need to be designed to have a specific length to width ratio because they do
not rely on sedimentation over the tank. The dimensions of the Los Quiscamotes biosand filtration
unit are specified in figure 4 and 5.

Pipes leading to the filter area have shut-off valves that will stop flow when one filter is
off-line undergoing maintenance. The distribution pipes along the top of the biosand filter (figure
5) are perforated and allow for even distribution of the water across the filter bed area. This feature
allows for the biological layer to remain undisturbed

18
 Figure 4. Front view of biosand filter and storage unit (water flows from left to right).

Figure 5. Top view of biosand filter and storage unit (aligns with front view)

Using the design specifications shown in table 5, the total height of the filter bed is 2.5 m
(figure 4). This includes a head of 1 m, a sand layer of 0.69 m, a gravel layer a 0.49 m, a brick
under drains of 0.2 m in height, and a freeboard (space between top of box and water level) of 0.3.
The purpose of the underdrain system is to allow for water to flow into the storage unit without
carrying gravel particles with it. Figure 6 is a detailed representation of the underdrain system.

The weir wall between the biosand filter unit and the storage tank is designed so that the
water levels of the storage do not affect the flow between units (Barrett, 1991). The height of the
specified wall is of 2.2 m to avoid backflows into the filter unit and constant overflow of the stored
19
water. Finally, the storage tank was designed to hold a total of 2 days of water that provide
approximately 40 L/capita per day based on the flowrate of the spring. In addition, the collection
pipe is located relatively close to ground and it is design to operate based on a valve system.

Figure 6. Brick underdrains (Water for the World, Designing a Slow Sand Filter, 1993)

3.4.2 Head Loss and Storage

Head loss through the biosand was considered when designing the filter. Using Darcys
law the approximate head loss through the porous medium of the filter can be calculated (Barrett,
1991). Calculations showed head loss through the filter bed of approximately 6.14 cm through
both filters. This means the overflow wall must be at least 6.14 cm shorter than the supernatant
water height to ensure the flow can enter the storage area. Since the head loss in the biosand
increases over time, the difference in height of the overflow wall to the top of the sand should be
greater than 6.14 cm. This accounts for buildup of head loss between regularly occurring
maintenance. Our design accounts for 20 cm of difference between the top of supernatant water
and the over flow pipe within the storage unit (figure 4).

3.5 Cost

The estimated costs for the system is based on the dimensions from the different design
components. In addition, one of our constraints was to create a sense of ownership for the system
20
by providing the opportunity to the people of Los Quiscamotes to put some labor and time in the
construction of the system. Therefore, the cost analysis does not include labor because, as
previously mentioned, our client wants to incentivize community involvement. Table 6 presents a
breakdown of the material quantity, and estimated cost required for each component of the
proposed system. It is important to note that the costs were approximations of the materials based
on the U.S and Honduran markets. The total cost was well below the criteria cost of $10,000. Over
50% of the costs comes from the rebar and concrete for the biosand filtration tank.

Table 6. Cost analysis of required materials

System Estimated
Material Units Quantity Required
Component Cost
Concrete M 20.1 $2,630.00
Sand m3 6.0 $390.00
Gravel m3 3.0 $260.00
Biosand Bricks Pavers 336 $883
Steel Cover m2 12.18 $22.00
x 20 ft rebar
Rebar 150 $1,159.00
stick
Steel Cover m2 1 $370.00
Concrete m3 1.19 $160.00
Spring Box
x 20 ft rebar
Rebar 11 $85.00
stick
12 V Lead-Acid Battery - 2 $360.00
Solar Pannel Array - 1 $180.00
Solar Pump
Pump and float switch - 1 $130.00
Inverter - 1 $25.00
3 inch Sc. 80 PVC M 14 $240.00
Other
Valves - 4 $220.00
Total Cost $7,114.00

Section 4: Site Visit and Future Recommendations

4.1 Site Visit
To ensure the conceptual design being proposed will be beneficial to the community, the
team sent two members to the site to collect data regarding the needs and desires of the community.
The retrieval of this information was through a process of random interviewing to a portion of the
community. A total of 13 households were visited and interviewed. During the interview, questions

21
regarding their water use, water sources, practices, and improvements with respect to water were
made. The results yielded a high interest in developing a project which would provide source of
potable water either directly to their homes or in a centralized location. This information supports
the proposal of the centralized biosand water treatment and storage design for the community of
Los Quiscamotes. In addition, during the visit, the team met with Mr. Elias, the owner of the
property of the design site. Through this meeting, we accomplished an understanding of the
concerns Mr. Elias has for the project. This collective information can help to better understand
and improve the approach towards promoting a community buy-in system for future project
development.

4.2 Future Recommendations

The proposed system is a conceptual design based on an initial number of assumptions.

Therefore, if desired to scale this design it is imperative to perform pilot tests for the biosand filter
bed. In addition, the team suggest developing a water safety plan where the community gets
educated on the importance of hygiene and keeping the water protected from contamination at the
source and at the individual homes. Moving forward, the results from the Aquagenex E. coli testing
performed during the site visit show that the water from the spring is completely unsafe to drink.
It is uncertain the origin of this contamination (spring box contamination or contamination in the
ground water). Therefore, the team recommends performing further testing of the water quality.
Tests such as dye testing and ground water contamination tracking can be beneficial. Due to the
presence of cattle around the spring a study of the impact of said source of contamination could
help get a more holistic understanding of the contamination source.

Also, the team suggests developing a distribution system of the water into the households
as this is one of the biggest needs of the community. With this, a study of the different sources of
water can be explored and combine with an existing yet not implemented storage tank in the
community. Finall, treating the water from the hand pump located in the school can improve the
community by providing safe drinking water to the kids. This is suggested based on the evaluation
of alternatives which resulted in having the handpump treated as a second-best option.

22
Section 5: Supporting Documentation
5.1. Biosand head loss calculations

Headloss through biosand columns using Darcys Law:

V = k/* hL/Z Equation (1)
Where:
V = hydraulic loading rate (flow/filter area)
K = conductivity coefficient
= kinetic viscosity of water
hL= head loss
Given information:
= 0.955x10-3 kg/ms
V=3.16x10-5 m/s
k=6.6x10-7 N/m
Z=1.3 m
Solving for headloss from equation (1) gives a total of headloss 6.14 cm

5.2 Determining the Amount of Power Needed for Pumping

2 2 2
Power (in watts) = mgh + 4f 2
+ 3( 2 )+ 2
Equation (2)

11.04 .03922 .03922 .03922

Power = (.167
x 9.81 2 x 4.04 m) + (4 x 0.04 x .04621 2
)+ 3[0.75 2
]+ 0.17 2

Power = 6.06 watts.

To get this required pumping head into meters, we divided watts by the gravitational constant
multiplied by the mass flow rate.

6.06
Total required pumping head = = 4.0420669 meters
(9.81 2 .1665 )

Amount of friction head loss = Total required pumping head elevation head

Amount of friction head loss = 4.0420669 meters 4.04 meters

23
 = 2.07 x 10-3 or 2.07 mm of head loss

Variables Used:

(at 25 degrees Celsius) = 997.08 kg/m3

Q = assumed flowrate = 14.4 m3/day = 1.67 x 10-4 m3/s

m= mass flow rate

m=Qx

m = 1.67 x 10-4 m3/s x 997.08 kg/m3 = .1665

g= gravitation constant

h= elevation change = 4.04 m

Reynolds Number

997.08 (3.92 102 ) (73.66 103 )
3
=
= (0.8937 103 )
= 3221

f= friction factor(from Moody Chart)

equivalent roughness = 1.5 x 10-6 = (Pump Fundamentals, 2003)

Relative Roughness = /D = (1.5 x 10-6)/(73.66 x 10-3) = 2.036 x 10-5

L = horizontal distance = 11.04 m

D = diameter of a 3 inch nominal pipe = 73.66 mm (Geankopolis, C.J., 2003)

V= flow velocity

1.67 x 104
v== 46.21 104
= .0361 m/s

A= cross- sectional area for a 3 inch nominal pipe

Kf = constants for various fittings(Geankopolis, C.J., 2003)

90 degree Elbow = 0.75

24
 Wide Open Gate Valve = 0.17

Q = volumetric flow rate

3 1 24 1 1
= 14.43 24
60
60 60 = 1.67 x 10-4 m3/s

5.3 Determining the Amount of Power That Needs to Be Stored:

Solar Insolation = 5.9 daily average solar hours(Hotspot Energy, 2010)

*This shows the number of hours that a solar array can produce the most energy from sunlight,
based on the number of hours when the sun is directly overhead.

Number of Hours Needed to Store Power: (24 hours-5.9) = 18.1

Amount of Power that Needs to be Stored: 0.185 kw x 18.1 = 3.35 kw = 3348.5 watts

3348.5
Amount of Power that Solar Array Must Produce for Storage: 5.9
= 567 watts

Amount of Power that Solar Array Needs to Produce to Supply to Pump: 185 watts

Total Amount of Power that Solar Array Needs to Produce: 185 watts + 567 watts = 753
watts

753
Required Size of the Solar Array: 1.8
= 418 cells

5.3 Determining the Amount of Batteries Needed:

Given data:

Voltage= 12 volts (Progressive Dynamics, 2016)

Pump Power = 185 watts (Power Equipment Direct, 2017)

Storage of Batteries = 125 Amp-Hour each (Progressive Dynamics, 2016)

Minimum Current Needed for Pump Operation = 3.8 amps (Power Equipment Direct, 2017)

125
3.8
= 32. 9 hours

Amount of Power Produced:

25
 Power = Current x Voltage = 125 amp-hour x 12 volts = 1.5 kw-h

= 1.5 kw-h x 32.9 hrs = 49.35 kw

Therefore, two 12-volt batteries are needed.

Pump Model: Zoeller WM49- HP Cast Iron Submersible Sump Pump with Tether Flow
Switch

Section 6: Acknowledgement and References

6.1 Acknowledgements

The team would like to take this opportunity to thank Dr. Brian Benham for all the advice,
guidance, and time invested during the development of this project. It has been an amazing
opportunity to have him as an advisor and friend. In addition, we would like to show our
appreciation to Mr. David McCann for providing the opportunity to work in this project as well as
to provide inside and constant support. On behalf of the team members that traveled with Mr.
McCann to Honduras, it has been a pleasure to get to know you closer, develop a friendship, and
can help the collect data for future use. Finally, we would like to thank Ms. Erin Ling for the advice
and guidance when planning the site visit and community survey documents as well as the help
processing the samples brought back from the trip.

6.2 References

Barrett, Joy M., Bryck, Jack, Collins, Robin M., et al. (1991). Manual of Design for Slow Sand
Filtration. Hendricks, David (Ed.). Denver, CO: American Water Works Association.
Busch, J. & Morales,T.D.(2010). Design of Small Photovolatic Solar-Powered Water Pump
System. United States Department of Agriculture-National Resource Conservation
Service. Retrieved from https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ Internet/
FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_046471.pdf
CAWST. Biosand Filters Knowledge Base. Retrieved from http://biosandfilters.info/
Climate-data Organization, Retrived from http://es.climate-data.org/location/3751/

Collin, C. (2009). Biosand filtration of high turbidity water: modified filter design and safe
filtrate storage. Ph.D. diss. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Massachusettes Institute of
Technology, Department Civil and Environmental of Engineering.
26
Honduran Association of Renewable Energy Suppliers (AHPER). Retrieved from
http://www.ahper.org/en/index.php/renewable-energy-in-honduras.html

Hotspot Energy.(2010). Solar Hours Map for Caribbean, Central America and South
America(Solar Insolation Map). Hotspot Energy. Retrieved from
http://www.hotspotenergy.com/DC-air-conditioner/caribbean-latin-america-solar-
map.php
Geankopolis, C.J. (2003). Design Equations for Laminar and Turbulent Flow in Pipes. In
Transport Processes and Separation Process Principles (Fourth Edition). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education
Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. (2006): Guideline Values for Verification of Microbial
Quality. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO
Gonzalez, Ana Carolina. (2012). Study to analyze the viability of rainwater catchment from roofs
for its reuse in Tegucigalpa, Honduras. MS thesis. Fort Collins, Colorado: Colorado State
University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering.
Jacques Chaurette. (2003). Pipe Roughness Values. Pump Fundamentals. Retrieved from
http://www.pumpfundamentals.com/download-free/pipe_rough_values.pdf

J.T Visscher, R. Paramasivan, A. Raman, and H.A. Heijnen. (1987). Slow Sand Filtration for
Community Water Supply. The Hague, Netherlands: International Reference Centre
for Community Water Supply and Sanitation.
Luzi, S., Tobler, M., Suter, F., Meierhofer, R. (2016). SODIS Manual: Guidance on Solar Water
Disinfection. Sandec: Sanitation, Water and Solid Waste for Development. Retrieved
from
http://www.sodis.ch/methode/anwendung/ausbildungsmaterial/dokumente_material/so
dismanual_2016.pdf
ML Solar. (2017). 1 kW 3 x 6 Untabbed Whole Solar Cells DIY Kit Tab Wire, Bus, Flux. ML
Solar. Retrieved from http://www.mlsolar.com/1kw-3x6-untabbed-whole-solar-cells-
diy-kit-tab-wire-bus-flux/

Progressive Dynamics.(2016). Battery Basics. Progressive Dynamics. Retrieved from

http://www.progressivedyn.com/battery_basics.html
Ritcher R., & Pickering A., (2013). Primimg the Pumps - Debugging Dhakas Water. Retrieved
from http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013summer/article2.html
Solar Direct.(2016.) Solar Electric Photovoltaic Modules. Solar Direct. Retrieved from
http://www.solardirect.com/pv/pvlist/pvlist.htm

27
Swistock, Bryan. (2016) Spring Development and Protection. Penn State College of Agricultural
Sciences Research. Retrieved from http://extension.psu.edu/natural-
resources/water/drinking-water/cister ns-and-springs/spring-development-and-
protection
Sump Pumps Direct. (2017). Zoeller WM49- HP Cast iron Submersible Sump Pump with
Tether Float Switch. Power Equipment Direct. Retrieved from
https://www.sumppumpsdirect.com/Zoeller-49-0005-Sump-Pump/p51131.html
UN DESA, (2015). World Population Prospects: The 2015 Revision. Retrieved from
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/2015-report.html
Warner, D. B., & Serment, C. (2005). Guidelines for the Development of Small-Scale Rural
Water Supply and Sanitation Projects in East Africa: A Policy and Planning Framework
for Activities Funded by USAID uner the Title II (Food for Peace) Program and by
Other Donors.
Water For The World, Methods of Developing Sources of Surface Water, Technical Note No.
RWS.1.M, http://www.lifewater.org/resources/rws1/rws1m1.gif
Water for the World (1993). Selecting a Source of Surface Water. Technical Note: RWS 1.P.3.
WHO, (2016). Drinking Water. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs391/en/
WHO/UNICEF, (2015). Joint Monitoring Programme. Key Facts from JMP 2015 Report.
Retrieved from http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/JMP-2015
keyfacts-en-rev.pdf?ua=1

28