Gravity vs Vacuum

Investment costs and maintenance

 In 20 minutes

Vacuum gravity: comparing investment costs

Case study: one project in the Middle East and one in Eastern Europe
Vacuum gravity: comparing operations costs

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 2

 Worldwide vacuum A:2700

1400
PL:1300

1200

Typical: 500-8000 PE UAE:1100

1000

800
No of valves

600

400

200

0
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Systems built outside Germany by Roediger

Year
3

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 3

Investment cost
/ $ / / / RON / AED

Conditions 4

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 4

 Typical question
I have a settlement of 2000 PE, what would be the price?
Ok-ok. Than What range?
k
160
140
120
100
80
60
Conclusion: every vacuum project is different,
40 so we need a map of the area.
20
0
0 100 200 300 No of chambers400 5

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 5

Sample project in Middle East

Home game:
Flat
Sandy
Coastal area
7500 PE

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 6

 Sample project in Middle East
3.000.000

2.500.000

2.000.000

1.500.000

1.000.000

500.000

0
Sewer Lines, Collection Vacuum Other costs TOTAL
pipes, chambers / stations / (transport,
fittings, Manholes pump custom,
backfilling T&M stations biofilter)

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 7

Sample project in Eastern Europe

High ground water table

Flat
Channels crossing
Road already built
8400 PE

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 8

 Sample project in Eastern Europe
5.000.000
4.500.000
4.000.000
3.500.000
3.000.000
2.500.000
2.000.000
1.500.000
1.000.000
500.000
0
Sewer Lines, Collection Vacuum Other costs TOTAL
pipes, chambers / station / (transport,
fittings, Manholes pump road rebuild,
backfilling T&M stations design)

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 9

Case study

how much does it cost?

Vacuum: Gravity with pump stations

Collection chambers
Network with small diameter pipes
Shallow and narrow trenches
Only one vacuum station
Logistics, customs
Manholes
Network with big diameter pipes
Deep and wide trenches
Many pumping stations
Logistics, customs

Alltogether: - 35% -40%

depending always on the individual / typical
project
29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 10
 Gravity

Vacuum/
Pressure Vacuum

Titel I Monat Jahr Seite 11

Operation and maintenance

The myth: no maintenance in gravity systems

The truth: there is a whole industry built on cleaning and repairing gravity systems

RoeVac Vacuum systems Gravity systems

Labour

Regular check of
collection chambers

Regular check of vacuum station
Labour

Regular check of manholes

Pipeline inspection, CCTV inspections

Cleaning accumulated sludge, slime and debris
(jetting with high-pressure)

Flushing

Replacement/repair

Oil and filters to vacuum pumps Replacement/repair

Valve membrane
Oil discharge pumps and lifting station pumps

(app. every 5 years) replacement
Manhole/Sewer rehabilitation

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 12

Operation and maintenance

RoeVac Vacuum systems Gravity systems

Electricity consumption Electricity consumption

Electricity consumption of vacuum station
Electricity consumption of lift- and pump
(approx.15-25 kWh/PE/year) stations

Cleaning the system: Cleaning the system:

Vacuum sewer mains are self-cleansing
H2S deodorization
due to high velocity
Flushing, spooling the system

Sewage treatment: Water treatment:

Handle only wastewater
Handle big amount of infiltrated ground

Handle fresh waste water, mixed with air water

Closed system handle only wastewater
Handle aged and possibly septic
wastewater
of the community

Handle wastewater from unsure source

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 13

 Operation and maintenance

RoeVac Vacuum systems Gravity systems

Operation Safety Atmospheric hazards in confined spaces:

No operational risks to operators
low oxygen

All equipment can be accessed from
hydrogen sulphide
above ground level
explosive concentrations of methane

No direct contact with wastewater Physical hazards with confined space entry

No climbing into manholes or confined
Objects falling onto operators
spaces required
Biological hazards:

Germs and diseases

Viruses

Pathogenic organisms
Insects, animals
Bad smell

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 14

 Thank you for the attention !

Roediger Vacuum GmbH

Kinzigheimer Weg 104 -106
D - 63450 Hanau, Germany

Zoltan Barcza
International Business Division
Area manager
E-mail: zoltan.barcza@roevac.com
Tel.: +40 - 741632024

29 October 2010
29 October 2010

Example A: Area with a high population

density 2.000 PE

VS

500 m

500 m
29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 16
 Example A: Area with a higher population
density
Vacuum costs:
Pipes: 2.000 m x 50 /m = 100.000
Collection chambers: 100 CC x 2.000 = 200.000
Vacuum station: = 200.000
Total: 500.000
________________________
Gravity costs:
Pipes: 2.000 m x 100 /m = 200.000
Manholes: 40 x 300 = 15.000
Pump station: 1 x 50.000 = 50.000
Total: 275.000

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 17

 Example B: Area with a lower population
density 2.000 PE

VS

2.000 m

40 PE

3.000 m
29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 18
 Example B: Area with a low population density

Vacuum costs:
Pipes: 10.000 m x 50 /m = 500.000
Collection chambers: 130 CC x 2.000 = 260.000
Vacuum station: = 200.000
Total: 960.000
________________________ - 30 %
Gravity costs:
Pipes: 10.000 m x 100 /m = 1.000.000
Manholes: 200 x 300 = 60.000
Pump stations: 4 x 50.000 = 200.000
Total: 1.260.000

29 October 2010 Gravity vs vacuum Zoltan Barcza | page 19

 Gravity

Vacuum/
Pressure Vacuum

Titel I Monat Jahr Seite 20