How to do water level monitoring better
Existing water level monitoring, usually for Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) or Event Duration Monitoring (EMD) purposes has been in regular use in the UK for decades. But the equipment hasn’t changed much in that time and with the current technology comes limitations. At Detectronic, we’ve spent the last few years working out how to do water level monitoring better for the benefit of water companies, their customers and the environment.
In this post, we’ll focus on EDM / CSO and External Flooding. Look out for our follow up post on Internal Sewer Flooding.
EDM – Sewer Network monitoring
External flooding in trunk sewers is a common issue faced by every water company. The sewer network has to stand up to so many challenges from natural weather events to manmade problems such as wet wipes and fatbergs. It’s inevitable that at certain times it will simply no longer be able to cope and flooding will occur. Being able to predict a problem well in advance of it occurring is, of course, the key. And to achieve that, you need consistent, robust and highly accurate data.
The level data below was gathered last spring from an ultrasonic monitor placed in a client’s wastewater network. The blue line along the centre of the graph below is true data, the spikes are simply ‘noise’ and therein lie the limitations of existing technology.
Think about trying to have a conversation with a friend. You are one side of the road; your friend is on the other. It’s a busy road and trucks, cars and motorbikes are driving by every few seconds. You can hear some words your friend is saying but not all of them. As the traffic speeds up and gets noisier, it’s impossible to hear anything your friend is saying, so you give up and go inside.
What would’ve made your conversation better, easier, more productive? Crossing the road and standing next to your friend of course – problem solved!
True, there are companies out there that have created software with clever algorithms that analyse data and filter out noise. Surely though, it’s better to generate reliable, accurate and sound data from your sensor so you don’t need fancy algorithms and additional software? More on generating decent data later!
It’s just too noisy – the limitations of ultrasonic level monitoring
The ‘noise’ spikes you can see in the data are caused by the very same proximity issue. Let’s explore the reasons for this:
- Limited range. An ultrasonic level sensor must be placed high up in the channel, normally around 3m above the invert; that’s a long way from the target being measured!
- Blanking distance or ‘dead-band’. The sensor will switch off when the wastewater in the channel gets close and, at that point, will only record a null value.
- Beam spread. Placing a sensor at 3mm equates to a 1:5 or 600mm beam spread in a large asset. In a small channel placing at 1m that could result in a beam spread of 200mm. The soundwaves being picked up by the ultrasonic sensor bounce off the sides of the channel within the beam spread thus creating anomalies in the data.
- Wind speed. Any change in wind speed or the movement of air through the area being measured will affect the ultrasonic sensor soundwaves.
- Surface foaming and FOGs. If the surface of the target being measured is affected by foam or there is a high density of FOGs in the network, they will deaden and absorb any sound which would have an effect on the data.
- Temperature. A 5°C change in temperature will result in a data error of up to 7.5mm when measuring the level within the network.
Let’s get closer
It’s clear from ongoing analysis (and several decades of water level monitoring experience), the closer that the sensor can be placed to the target to be measured, the better. Getting up close leaves far less room for error and a cleaner, more precise echo can be achieved.
So, we set out to complete a number of trials for our existing customers, putting this concept into action and observing and then analysing the results. We utilised a variety of different sensors, not just ultrasonic ones, including several hydrostatic pressure sensors.
Hydrostatic Pressure Sensors v. Ultrasonic Sensors
Hydrostatic pressure sensors are very accurate when referenced to the atmosphere. They are typically mounted outside of the channel and they’re rather more reactive compared to the proactive ultrasonic sensor since they only really start to work when something starts to happen, i.e. the sensor has to be in to contact with the liquid. When the wastewater level reaches the sensor, you know there is a problem, and you must respond quickly.
Yes, we’ve outlined the limitations of ultrasonic sensors, but the fact remains that they are highly effective when implemented correctly and the limitations are mitigated; we’ve been using them in our ultrasonic level monitors for many, many years with huge success. With this in mind, and with the opportunity to carry out trials of new product development equipment across various wastewater networks, we asked the question: why not combine the benefits of both types of sensor?
Combining the benefits
Bringing all the useful elements of ultrasonic sensors and hydrostatic pressure sensors together, our R&D team created the LIDoTT®, a highly affordable water level monitoring sensor incorporating both ultrasonic and pressure level technologies.
By combining these two different types of sensor, it is possible to gather measurements over a wider range and, by installing the sensors closer to the target of measurement (without reducing the measurement range), highly accurate results are delivered. The graph below shows data received from the LIDoTT, which is much clearer without the noise.
In addition, there is no relevant dead-band and since the pressure sensor is calibrated by the ultrasonic, the result is a much more useful water level monitoring system that provides reliable and accurate level sensing in any sewer scenario.
That’s how we do water level monitoring better!
To find out more about the more about the LIDoTT® range, call us on +44 (0)1282 449124 or email email@example.com