Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:15:34.234Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Practical Approach for Prioritizing The Replacement of Water Pipes in Mexico City

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

V. Tzatchkov
Affiliation:
Mexican Institute of Water Technology, Paseo Cuauhnáhuac 8532, Col. Progreso, Jiutepec, Morelos, México, C.P. 62550, E-mail: humberto_ramirez@tlaloc.imta.mx
M. P. Hansen
Affiliation:
Mexican Institute of Water Technology, Paseo Cuauhnáhuac 8532, Col. Progreso, Jiutepec, Morelos, México, C.P. 62550, E-mail: humberto_ramirez@tlaloc.imta.mx
H. Ramírez
Affiliation:
Mexican Institute of Water Technology, Paseo Cuauhnáhuac 8532, Col. Progreso, Jiutepec, Morelos, México, C.P. 62550, E-mail: humberto_ramirez@tlaloc.imta.mx
Get access

Abstract

In Mexico City, one of the largest cities in the world, large losses occur in the drinking water distribution system, mainly due to the age of the pipes and the type of materials used in water delivery to the end user. In the past, most of the water distribution networks in the city were built with asbestos-cement pipes. Currently, policies dictate that they be replaced by polyethylene pipes. While the size of the city leads to limited financial resources, it is important to prioritize pipe replacement; therefore, a practical approach based on Deterioration Point Allocation (DPA) is proposed to define the priority level. In the next set of factors, each is represented by appropriate indicators:

  1. 1. Failures in pipes and service connections

    a. Number of failures (leaks) in pipes repaired in one year for every 100 km of pipeline.

    b. Number of failures (leaks) repaired in one year per 1000 service connections.

    c. Spatial concentration of failures (leaks) in a pipe

    2. Annual pipe and service connections rehabilitation or replacement level per year.

    3. Operating parameters of the network: intermittent water supply, water pressure, and water losses

    4. Deterioration status of pipes and service connections

    5. Land subsidence

A score and a weight are assigned to each factor. The score depends on the values of the indicator, and the weight on the relative importance of the factor. The final score is used to prioritize the replacement and it is calculated by adding up the scores of each factor.

Considering that available information is incomplete and unstructured, two levels of use are proposed: basic (with available data, using MS Excel) and advanced (using a GIS).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2.Centro Virtual de Información del Agua. http://www.agua.org.mx. 18 de enero de 2010.Google Scholar
3.Día mundial del agua, 22 de marzo de 2010. Calendario Demográfico. http://www.copo.df.gob.mx/calendario/calendario_2004/marzo/agua.html Google Scholar
4.Datos estadísticos de fugas de agua de las 16 delegaciones del D.F., periodo 2006-2008. Sistema de Agua de la Ciudad de México.Google Scholar
5.Gaceta Oficial del Distrito Federal. Varias épocas.Google Scholar
7.Hundimiento promedio anual (1992-2007), plano de la Cd. de México. Secretaría del Medio Ambiente, Gobierno del Distrito Federal.Google Scholar
8.Edades de la tubería, plano de la Cd. de México.Google Scholar
9.IWA/European Commision. CARE-W. Computer aided rehabilitation of water networks. Sveinung Saegrov, 2005.Google Scholar
10.Conagua 2007. DDF/SGO/DGCOH. Plan Maestro de Agua Potable del Distrito Federal, 1997-2010. Informe final. Julio 1997.Google Scholar