Views
8 months ago

galvis

Water treatment

5.7 Cost Model for the

5.7 Cost Model for the Cali Area and Cauca Valley 5.7.1 Construction cost model As an illustration of the cost involved in MSF technology, an analysis is presented for plant capacities of 2, 8, 15 and 25 ls -1 , utilising unit costs from Cali, Colombia. These costs are also applicable to a large extent to other sites in the Cauca Valley and other localities in Colombia that are a reasonable distance (less than two hours by road) from major departmental capitals. For each of the plant capacities, type designs have been established on the basis of the criteria indicated in table 5.1 and considerations indicated in Section 5.5.1. These designs have been used for a detailed calculation and also used to confirm the assumed cost distribution of 80/20 percentages. The results are presented in tables 5.5 through 5.7 and in figure 5.1. Table 5.5. Partial direct construction costs 1 for components of MSF systems in reinforced concrete, for capacities of 2 to 25 ls -1 . Based on construction costs in the Cali area of the Andean Cauca Valley, Colombia. Costs in US$, 1999. (1 US$ = 1924 Colombian $) MSF Component Capacity (ls -1 ) 2 8 15 25 DyGF 1,809 4,535 7,623 11,974 UGFL 3,137 8,484 14,717 23,618 UGFS (2) 5,695 15,907 27,821 44,841 UGFS (3) 8,318 23,557 41,337 66,736 SSF 12,016 33,874 58,988 94,541 Building 3,114 5,237 11,351 16,075 1. These partial direct construction costs were obtained for the items summarised in table 5.2. It is assumed that they represent approximately 80% of the total direct construction costs. Table 5.6. Overall construction costs 1 for MSF plants of reinforced concrete for capacities of 2 to 25 ls -1 . Based on construction costs in the Cali area of the Andean Cauca Valley, Colombia. Costs in US$ (1999). (1 US$ = 1924 Colombian $) MSF Alternative + Capacity (ls -1 ) Building 2 8 15 25 DyGF + SSF 26,467 68,197 121,816 191,547 DyGF + UGFL + SSF 31,369 81,453 144,811 228,450 DyGF + UGFS (2) + SSF 35,366 93,052 165,286 261,611 DyGF + UGFS (3) + SSF 39,464 105,005 186,405 295,822 1. These overall construction costs were obtained by summing the cost of the components included in table 5.5, and by multiplying the results by 1.25 (to take into account other items not included in table 5.2) and 1.25 (to take into account PAC) Table 5.7. Estimated distribution of the overall construction costs by percentage of the components of different MSF systems, for the Cali area of the Andean Cauca Valley, Colombia (1999). (a) MFS stage & MSF Alternative Components DyGF + SSF DyGF + UGFL+ SSF DyGF + UGFS (2) + SSF DyGF + UGFS (3) + SSF DyGF UGFL UGFS (2) UGFS (3) SSF Building (b) Others 8 - - - 56 11 25 7 13 - - 52 10 18 6 - 22 - 47 9 16 6 - - 29 42 8 15 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% (a) In this table the cost of “ others” (valves, fencing, pathways, gardens, drainage facilities, electrical installations, disinfecting facilities, lab equipment and flow measurement devices) were calculated without using the 80/20 percentages. (b) Building includes facilities for sand storage, space for disinfecting facilities, and operator’s basic needs. 185

100 A C: Partial Direct Construction Costs (Thousand US$) 10 1 1 10 100 Q: Flow (ls -1 ) DyGF C = 1.04 Q 0.74 UGFL C = 1.75 Q 0.79 UGFS (2) C = 3.14 Q 0.81 UGFS (3) C = 4.57 Q 0.81 SSF C = 6.65 Q 0.81 Building C = 1.77 Q 0.66 1000 C: Overall Construction Costs (Thousand US$) 100 10 DyGF + SSF C = 14.78 Q 0.78 DyGF + UGFL + SSF C = 17.52 Q 0.78 DyGF + UGFS (2)+ SSF C = 19.69 Q 0.79 DyGF + UGFS (3)+ SSF C = 21.92 Q 0.79 1 10 100 B The regression co-efficient is over 0.96 for all cases. Q: Flow (ls -1 ) Figure 5.1. Construction cost models. Cali area, Andean Cauca Valley, Colombia, 1999. (A) MSF treatment stages designed in reinforce concrete (based on data included in table 5.5). (B) MSF treatment alternatives designed in reinforced concrete (based on data included in table 5.6). 5.7.2 Operation, maintenance and administration costs As an example, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are included in tables 5.8 and 5.9 for all MSF alternatives under consideration. These costs were obtained following the procedure described in Section 5.6.2. Additionally, administration costs were obtained according to procedure described in sections 5.6.3 and 5.6.4. It was assumed monthly salaries of 145.5 and 181.9 US$ for operator and administrator respectively. Total OM&A cost for all MSF alternatives are shown in figure 5.2. 186

Screen Filtration for Ballast Water Treatment Applications - Cross ...
Precursor Removal from Ground Water Using GAC ... - Ohiowater.org
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
2003 City of Roanoke Water Quality Report - Western Virginia Water ...
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
FILTRATION - Environmental Protection Agency
Filter housings catalogue
Chemicalfree Water Treatment - Necon
Water Treatment Improvements and Plant Capacity ... - Ohiowater.org
Commercial water treatment solutions - CMS
Evaluation of Treatment Options for the Raspberry ... - Loudoun Water
environmentally responsible water treatment - Promolife
Information You Need to Know When Considering ... - Ohiowater.org
lauren@kelman.ca
Omnipure catalogue - The Water Shop
The Treatment of Scottish Water for Private Communities
Simple Ways To Enhance Your Water Treatment ... - Ohiowater.org
A Working Ballast Water Treatment Solution Only ... - Auramarine
Twin Air Dual-Stage Air Filters - Synpsg
Astrasand Continuous Backwash Filter - Siemens Water Technologies
Sartorius Capsules – Filter for Wash Water Filtration in Hospitals
Using Compact Combined Constructed Wetland as Post Treatment ...
Download this project as a low-resolution pdf
lifa_renovation_h_le.. - Lifa.net