ASCE 1193: The Water-Works And Sewerage Of Monterrey, N. L., Mexico Part 12

The water-works were designed to supply 40,000,000 liters (10,582,000 gal.) daily, which it was a.s.sumed would be sufficient for all future developments in Monterrey for a population of 200,000 at a per capita consumption of 200 liters (about 53 gal.) per day. The present population of the city is given as less than 90,000, there having been an increase of 22,000 in ten years (1891-1901), but it is evident that in the last ten years (1901-1911) this rate of increase has not continued. Taking into account all the data known to the writer, it does not seem that the city will attain a population of 200,000 in a great many years, if it ever does; but this is a matter of personal opinion, and is only stated as such.

The present requirements of the city's population, a.s.suming that each person uses 200 liters (53 gal.) per day, would be, at that rate, which is a very liberal one, only 18,000,000 liters (4,762,000 gal.) per day, or less than half the amount which may be provided.

If the water were not to be metered and the sewage discharge paid for by measure, it is possible that the free use of water might lead to the usual waste with which all are fairly familiar; but the use of meters, and the rates charged, will reduce the water consumption to a minimum. This end will especially result from Section 5 of the Tariffs which provides that:

"Groups can be formed of two or more small houses so as to obtain a joint service under the proportion shown in the tariff."

This provision will keep down the per capita supply, among the majority of the people, to about 37-1/2 liters (10 gal.) per day. A similar provision led to abuse in Santiago de Cuba, as well as in other Cuban cities, where one householder, taking water, frequently delivers it to adjoining houses and tenements through rubber hose. As many as ten or twelve families are sometimes found to be supplied from one tap in this manner. Indeed, it may be stated as a rule, having but few exceptions, that where water is paid for by meter its use is always restricted.

The water mains and distribution system, however, are so well laid out, and the whole design is so good, that the writer would not antic.i.p.ate much difficulty because it is on rather too liberal lines for the present or probable future. It may, perhaps, be argued that it may cost more to keep the mains in such a system clean; but this extra cost will scarcely be of much moment, and will be offset by the greater lasting quality of the larger pipes. There is another feature of the problem, however, which is not affected favorably by a too liberal forecast of the per capita water supply, namely, the sewerage system.

If it is a.s.sumed that, using 200 liters per capita per day, the total water supply of the city for the present population will be 18,000,000 liters, and that this may double in fifty years, or even amount to 40,000,000 liters in that time, it would seem that a rather liberal provision has been made for the water supply, and that this will scarcely be exceeded by the sewage, for the latter must come from the water supply, there being little or no ground-water and no storm-water taken into the sewers. Designing the sewers to flow half full for all diameters less than 18 in., and seven-tenths full for all larger sizes, it would seem that this would give ample capacity for all time to come in such a city, and that good practice would not exceed these figures, it being more desirable that the sewers should not be too large to work well, than that they should be large enough in all places to meet every possible contingency.

If all the sewers of a system are too large, the condition is incurably bad; while, if a few miles prove to be too small, on account of growth and prosperity not antic.i.p.ated by the designer, it will be easy enough to relay such parts when this becomes necessary.

Mr. Conway states that:

"The sewers are designed on a very liberal basis, namely, on the a.s.sumption that when flowing half full the quant.i.ty to be dealt with will be 380 liters [100 gal.] per capita per day, with a maximum rate of flow of 200 per cent."

If the writer understands this statement correctly, it means that the sewers, flowing half full, will carry 380 liters per capita in 12 hours, or are designed with 200% of the capacity required to take the a.s.sumed flow in 24 hours.

It was a.s.sumed that each house would be occupied by 7 persons and have a frontage of 12-1/2 m. (about 41 ft.), that is, about 700 gal. per day per house, the maximum flow rate being 200%, or at the rate of 700 gal. per house in 12 hours.

It is to be remembered that nearly all the houses are of one story, and that, as a rule in tropical and sub-tropical countries, the per capita use of water diminishes with some function of the increasing number of inhabitants in one house. Most of the water is used in the kitchen, and where there are 7 persons instead of 5, the quant.i.ty used by the smaller number will generally serve the larger.

The writer is unable to understand how this quant.i.ty of sewage will be produced, especially as the author states that, as far as the company is concerned, it is limited to the removal and disposal of the sewage, and is not required to provide for storm-water. He also states that:

"Apart from that fact, however, the best system for a city like Monterrey, where rainfall for many months at a time is very scarce, is the strictly 'separate system'."

The minimum velocities in the sewers, when running full, vary between 0.91 and 1.5 m. (from 3 to 5 ft.) per sec., and will be the same flowing half full.

From the foregoing data it will be observed that:

(1) The water supply is the only source from which sewage flow is antic.i.p.ated;

(2) The water supply is very liberally estimated at 200 liters (53 gal.) per capita daily;

(3) For purposes of sewer design, the daily flow of sewage expected (all of which is derived from the water supply of 200 liters per capita) is estimated at 380 liters per capita, with a maximum rate of flow of 200% (or at the rate of 760 liters per capita), and with this quant.i.ty the sewers are designed to flow only half full;

(4) The gradients are such that a velocity of from 3 to 5 ft.

(0.91 to 1.5 m.) per sec. will be secured in the sewers flowing half full with the above quant.i.ty of flow per capita.

The writer does not agree with this method of computation, as he feels sure that it will give sewers which are too large, with grades too steep for the best obtainable results. His experience, extending over more than twenty years in sewer design and hydraulic work, convinces him that the method pursued is wrong in principle.

The principles involved in sewer design are first of all hydraulic. The quant.i.ty of flow, in the nature of things, cannot be forecasted accurately; success depends on getting the nearest possible approximation to average conditions. If 200 liters per capita per day is a liberal allowance, and 40,000,000 liters per day is a liberal expectation at this rate for double the present population, and the sewers are designed to flow half full only, why should this again be doubled?

The design of a sewer system for a city such as Monterrey is, in fact, a very difficult problem, especially as the quant.i.ty of sewage will be very limited, flush-water will have to be used in considerable quant.i.ties, and water in that part of the world is precious at all times and often scarce.

Under these circ.u.mstances, the size or shape of the pipes selected for the lateral sewers, should have been such as would more nearly agree with the requirements than does the 8-in. circular.

A. P. Folwell, M. Am. Soc. C. E., writing of the 8-in. circular size, states:[10]

[10] "Sewerage," by A. P. Folwell, M. Am, Soc. C. E.

"To secure a flow in this pipe having an average depth of 4 inches would require the sewage from a population of 6,500. In general it may be said that the ordinary depth of flow in any sewer should not be less than 2 inches, nor should it be less than 1/2 the radius of the invert, since if it is so there is much more danger of deposits forming along the edges and even in the center of the stream. It will sometimes be impossible to meet this requirement fully, but it should be kept in mind as extremely desirable."

Sewers of small size should be proportioned throughout the system so that the depth of the minimum daily flow in the invert, and the velocity of flow, will be the best possible to prevent deposits. The transporting power of water is dependent mainly on the depth of flow, a minimum velocity being selected rather than a minimum depth of flow. To those who have had charge of the maintenance of sewers, as well as of their design and construction, this principle seems so obvious that it is always a surprise to see it disregarded by designers, who in these days seem inclined to consider sewerage as a system of grades and sizes of pipes installed for ideal, rather than for actual, conditions. Messrs. Staley and Pierson have well stated the principle involved as follows:

"A stream having a depth of flow sufficient to immerse solid matter held in suspension, to a certain extent lifts it and carries it forward. The entire surface is also exposed to the action of the current. A stream having an equal velocity but a less depth in proportion to the diameter of the solid matters to be transported, evidently has less transporting power. * * * An amount of sewage which can be properly transported by a circular sewer of a given size, cannot be as efficiently transported by one of larger diameter."

From some strange idea, which is apparently without foundation in logic or based on any actual justification from experience, it has of late years become the practice of designing engineers to make the 8-in. circular pipe the smallest size for sewers; and it is not improbable that the designer of the Monterrey system has merely followed this example. It has also become the frequent practice of designers to give every length of sewer all the grade possible, regardless of the fact, taught both by hydraulics and experience, that the best grade is that which will give as much depth of flow as is consistent with a scouring velocity.

Some years ago it was the standard practice, in the "strictly separate system" of sewers, to use the 6-in. pipe as the minimum size, and, as far as the writer has been able to discover, after giving the matter a rather extensive investigation, the 6-in. size has given excellent results wherever its use was proper. In places where it has not succeeded there were excellent reasons why it should not have been selected, and these could easily have been observed at the time the designs were made. The best sizes for the sewers in a given system is always a matter to be determined by local conditions; but there seems to be no reason why the 6-in. size should not be used where the flow is so slight that the 8-in.

will not work well; or where the velocity must of necessity be so great that a flotation depth of flow cannot be maintained in the larger size. As to likelihood of clogging and stoppage, the writer's opinion, based on the maintenance of three rather extensive systems in different parts of the United States, in each of which the 6-in. size comprises more than 75% of the whole length of pipe, and of three other systems, one having 12-in.

and two having 8-in. as the minimum sizes, is that the 6-in. size, where properly used, is less likely to become clogged than either of the others used improperly. The cost of maintaining the 6-in. pipe lateral, under these circ.u.mstances, is much less than that of maintaining the 8-in.

lateral.

The 6-in. pipe is not being used now as much as the 8-in., and in most cases this is probably because the capacity of the latter is nearly double that of the 6-in., and costs only a few cents more per foot. If there is a sufficient population per acre, or if, within 30 or 40 years, such a population is antic.i.p.ated as will fill the 8-in. pipe half full, its use, of course, is justified and necessary; but where it is quite evident that this will never occur, its use is counter-indicated.

In Monterrey, where the building lots have a frontage of 41 ft., where the houses, as a rule, are only one story high, where the water service is metered and paid for, and the sewage flow is also paid for, there seems to be no reason to justify the use of 8-in. pipe for the upper reaches of the smallest sewers. The sewage flow to be antic.i.p.ated will probably never be sufficient to keep an 8-in. pipe sewer in a good clean condition at the upper ends of the lines of sewers without excessive flushing; and the sharper or steeper the grade on which it is placed, the worse will be the result, because the sharper the grade, the thinner the flowing thread of sewage will be drawn out in the invert; on the other hand, if the grades are flat, the slight quant.i.ty of sewage flow will be spread out in a sluggish stream, without sufficient depth, on the bottom of the 8-in.

pipe.

Where a wide surface is given to a small quant.i.ty of flowing sewage, it stagnates slowly along the bottom of the sewer, leaving frequent deposits to undergo decomposition and create foul air, if not to choke the sewer, a result often produced; and where a circular sewer which is too large for the ordinary flow is given a strong velocity by using steep grades, the stream, though flowing rapidly, is drawn out to such a thin thread that it will not effect the flotation of the solid ma.s.ses in the sewage brought in at house connections, and the shallow and thin stream simply flows around such ma.s.ses until a dam or obstruction forms and the sewage is backed up sufficiently to force the obstruction farther down, to form another obstruction in a larger pipe below. Flushing may possibly keep such a sewer fairly clean; but, as usually practiced, it is effective only for a few hundred feet from the flush-tank; and the quant.i.ty of flush-water required by an 8-in. pipe is more than twice as much as that required to keep the 6-in. pipe clean. Ventilation is better in the smaller sewer than in the larger, as there is less air to move; but the elaborate ventilating stacks provided at Monterrey may take care of this; and it is evidently a place where ventilation will be needed.

The ideal size and shape of cross-section for a sewer is such as will give the best flotation to moving solids which are being carried along by the flow; and this means the sewer that, with the expected ordinary or average flow, will give the best depth in the invert, when the velocity of flow is sufficient to keep suspended solids, grit, etc., moving at a rate of from 2 to 3 ft. per sec. The size, however, is limited by practical considerations. The circular pipes cannot well be less than 6 in. in diameter, because the house connections cannot well be less than 4-in.

pipe, and the sewer should be larger than the house connections, for various practical reasons; but, in order to secure flotation and a scouring flow, the smallest pipe, or the pipe having the smallest invert radius, that practical considerations permit, should be selected. The grade should be such, and the collecting system so laid out, that the flow may be conserved as far as possible, and the sewage flow should be kept of as great a depth in the invert, or bottom of the sewer, as safety in self-cleansing velocity will permit. This will save flush-water and prevent stoppages, and thus reduce the cost of maintenance to a minimum.

For good sanitary practice, the sewers should be designed, first of all, to comply with the requirements of the present, or immediately expected, ordinary flow, with some reasonable allowance for the future. They should be neither too large nor too small, and the grade should neither be too great nor too little, to secure the best flotation and scouring effects and the best flush-wave action under all circ.u.mstances.

The use of cement concrete pipe for sewers seems to be growing in favor; nor is this surprising, in view of the many improvements made in their design and manufacture. The excellence of the concrete pipe used in Monterrey and its success, suggest the query: Why was it not used still more extensively?

Table 13 shows that the cement pipe cost much less than the vitrified tile, or "fire-clay" pipe. Thus, the 38.1 cm. (15-in.) fire-clay cost 6.14 pesos per lin. m., the 45.7 cm. (18-in.) cost 8.80 pesos, and the 50.8 cm.

(20-in.) cost 11.30 pesos. Compared with this, the concrete pipe was much the cheaper; the 55.9 cm. (22-in.) cost 5.93 pesos, which is less than the cost of the 38.1 cm. (15-in.) fire-clay; and the 61.0 cm. (25-in.) concrete pipe cost 7.30 pesos, which is less than the 45.7 cm. (18-in.) fire-clay.

The writer's experience with concrete pipe, derived mainly from a long service in sewer design and construction in Brooklyn, N. Y., leads him to believe that at Monterrey the whole sewer system might, with advantage, have been built of concrete pipe, using an egg-shaped pipe with an area slightly larger than an 8-in. circle, designed for a discharge equal to an 8-in. pipe for all the smaller sewers. The invert of such an egg-shaped pipe would fulfill the present requirements in carrying a very small flow with good flotation depth, better than would a 6-in. circular pipe, and the reserve capacity of the 8-in. pipe would be secured without interfering with good present service. Egg-shaped pipes, similar to those used in Brooklyn, the writer believes, would have given far better satisfaction throughout the Monterrey sewerage system than circular fire-clay pipe, and would have cost no more, but probably less. The egg-shaped pipe referred to is made with a flat base and a self-centering joint, thus insuring perfect alignment, and a smoother interior surface than can be obtained with fire-clay pipes.

Brooklyn has about 450 miles of concrete pipe sewers, of all sizes less than 24 in., the greater part of which is egg-shaped. There are also about 250 miles of vitrified stoneware circular pipe sewers of similar sizes, and the cost of repairs and replacing pipe, over a period of years is about the same per mile for each kind. Incidentally, it may be stated that the annual cost of repairs per mile on both kinds of pipe is very small, and is only about one-fifth of the cost of repairs per mile on the brick sewers, of which there are about 200 miles.

The princ.i.p.al advantages and disadvantages of cement concrete pipe sewers may be summed up as follows:

ADVANTAGES OF CONCRETE PIPE.

(a) Cement concrete pipe is usually less costly than vitrified pipe.

(b) It can be formed in any shape desired.

(c) It is not cracked by vibration, and resists impact better than vitrified pipe, for which reason it is a better material to lay near the surface of a street in which there is heavy traffic.

(d) It is not affected by ordinary sewage.

(e) The cost of repairing and maintaining is about the same as for a vitrified pipe sewer.