WIPAC Monthly - January 2017

WIPAC MONTHLYThe Monthly Update from Water Industry Process Automation & Control
www.wipac.org.uk Issue 1/2017 - January 2017

In this Issue
From the Editor.................................................................................................................... 3
Industry News..................................................................................................................... 4 - 9
Highlights of the news of the month from the global water industry centred around the successes of a few of the
companies in the global market.
The year gone by and the year to come............................................................................. 10-12
A reflection of 2016 by WIPAC Monthly’s editor, Oliver Grievson, on what we have seen in the past year in the “Smart”
Water Industry be it instrumentation, data or the Internet of Things or even Water 4.0 and of course what we should
expect in 2017

Flow Rate Measurement in full pipes using the transit time method.................................. 13-14
A technology note by Nivus on the use of the transit time method in full pipes using their technology based around the
measurement of water velocity using time of flight measurement explaining the principles of the methodology and the
their take on the use of their technology in the application for flow measurement
WirelessHart Networks: 7 myths clouding their consideration for process control.............. 15-18
WirelessHart(R)
is a technology that is rarely used in the Water Industry despite its maturity and its use in other process
based industries. This articles by ABB dispels some of the myths surrounding its use in general and how it could and
perhaps should be use as a comms technique in the Water Industry
Workshops, Conferences & Seminars................................................................................... 18-19
The highlights of the conferences and workshops in the coming months

The picture on the front cover of this issue has been kindly provided by Nivus and is linked to their article on Transit Time later on
in this issue. It shows transit time paths across a pipe
WIPAC Monthly is a publication of the Water Industry Process Automation & Control Group. It is produced by the group
manager and WIPAC Monthly Editor, Oliver Grievson. This is a free publication for the benefit of the Water Industry and please feel
free to distribute to any who you may feel benefit.
All enquires about WIPAC Monthly, including those who want to publish news or articles within these pages, should be directed
to the publications editor, Oliver Grievson at olivergrievson@hotmail.com

From the Editor

And so another year starts and it is at this time of year that I normally take time to reflect where we are in the Smart
Water Industry and where we are going, i’ve done this in an article later on in this issue that reflects where we got
to last year and where , in my opinion, we are going. But I also want to touch on a few other things as well including the
areas that I’m going to focus on this year. My main bug bear as it were is the poor thought and the poor installation of in-
strumentation in general. Most of last year at the various conferences I went to I talked about where we get it wrong. It’s
very negative but we of course learn more from our msitakes that we do from our sucesse. At these conferences I’m the
first person to say “here are the mistakes that I’ve made and here is why I made them and here are the decisions that led
to that mistake. Now if we move forward the whole funadmental of the Smart Water Industry is that it is based on data...
if of course the data that you are getting is based on the premise of data that is fundmanetally wrong then you start on
shaky ground to start off with.
Now I have been challenged on that point quite a bit by various people including when I went over to Holland last year
and spoke at the Wetsus Conference. I was mightly impressed at the layout of things and the amazing level of water education there and thought in my head
so this why the Dutch are so innovative in what they do in the water space (must visit Israel, Denmark, Singapore & Jong Kong as well) and after I made the
presentation that I gave and talked about how we must get the fundamentals right I was approached by someone who said “love your speech, however there
was one point that isn’t necessarily true.” The errors you can filter out and clean the data....my response of course was “not if you don’t have any clean data to
start off with....the point was taken. It is something though that a good friend has been doing for quite sometime and my point was not quite true insofar as it
depends upon where you are getting your data from and from how many different sources. Its what jounalists do all the tme of course. They don’t necessarily
rely on one piece of information (data in our case) they work hard to confirm that what they receive is right....they confirm it....they check it. The fuzzy sensors
that I know have been built do the same thing. They don’t just rely on the fact that the DO sensor next door is probably right, they look at blower speeds,
header pressures, valve position and make an educated guess on what the holistic picture is. Its something that has been around for quite some time and we
still don’t adopt it fullly. If it can help then I still don’t see why we, as an industy, haven’t adopted it further.
So quality of installation is one point the other of course is education. I still see the doubters going “there are no shortage of engineers in the industry, there is
no skills shortage.” Well for instrumentation, in the water industry I can quite clearly and catagorically say there is. Its not just the point that instrumentation
seems to be a it of an after thought when constructing plants and as a result tends to be shoe-horned in to areas where it shouldn’t really be put but “it fits.
Of course it isn’t just the point that once in place it tends to be somewhat abandoned once it i in place and neither cleaned or serviced nor is it the point that
the data that the instrumentation collects is generally ignored. It is of course a combination of all of these points plus many more that actually means that
the data that instrumentation collects isn’t valued. This is of course an education that must be given to show the value of instrumentation, the fact that it can
save you money in the design of treatment works and limit what needs to be built, it can give you the health of the treatment works and show you what is
happening and it can help the key decisions that are made in the way we run both our treatment works our networks and as the water industry gets more and
more value orientated track the product(s) that we are producing.
Maybe 2017 will bring about the change in what we do and how we do there are certainly some interesting developments that are going to happen that are
going to push the envelope, the potential for an on-line BOD monitor that we can use as an industry, the development of a Smart Wastewater Tool by the
SWAN Forum and the usual discussions at the conferences that we know and love WEX, SWIG, Smart Water Systems, Smart Water Networks and many more
to come
Have a good month
Oliver

UN report flags up smart water as biggest global technology
opportunity
EPA Launches Technology Challenge For An Advanced Septic
System Nitrogen Sensor
The U.S. EPA and its partners have recently launched a technology challenge for an Advanced Septic System Nitrogen Sensor. The total award pool for this phase
is $55,000. Submissions for the challenge are open and due on or before March 17, 2017.
EPA has partnered with The Nature Conservancy, USGS and others to launch the Advanced Septic System Nitrogen Sensor Challenge. In Phase I, entrants will be
asked to design a nitrogen sensor for use in advanced nitrogen-removal onsite wastewater treatment systems, also known as advanced septic systems, in order
to monitor their long-term performance. The top entries will be awarded cash prizes totalling $55,000, and will be given the chance to network with industry
leaders, regulators, and advanced OWTS test centres to potentially seek prototype funding.
The Challenge will be managed by InnoCentive, EPA and Challenge partners. The challenge expert advisory committee who will review challenge submissions
includes experts from EPA, the New England Onsite Wastewater Training Program at the University of Rhode Island, the Massachusetts Alternative Septic
System Test Center (MASSTC), state onsite regulators, the National Onsite Wastewater Recycling Association, the New York State Center for Clean Water
Technology at Stony Brook University, and various university engineering programs.
Conventional septic systems are not designed to remove nitrogen, which can lead to problems like nitrogen loading to waterways. This issue is especially
important to coastal communities, where excess nitrogen causes toxic algal blooms leading to beach closures and degrades water resources. EPA estimates
that over 2.6 million existing systems could be good candidates for advanced septic systems that treat the nitrogen due to their location in nitrogen-sensitive
watersheds.
Many communities, state and local governments as well as environmental NGOs are eager and motivated to take action to prevent and reduce nitrogen
pollution in sensitive areas. While some have begun requiring installation of advanced septic systems to protect sensitive areas, routinely monitoring the long
term performance of these systems is logistically challenging and requires large investments in time and resources. Currently, no sensor for detecting and
measuring nitrogen in advanced septic system effluent is available.
EPA and its partners are accepting submissions of ideas for such a sensor until March 17, 2017 at https://www.innocentive.com/ar/challenge/9933926
For the third year in a row, smart water technology is perceived as the biggest global market opportunity, topping the list of the 2017 Global Opportunity Report
released by DNV GL, Sustainia and the United Nations Global Compact. For the 2017 edition of the Report, a response to the World Economic Forum’s Global
Risk Report, 5 500 leaders drawn from business, government and civil society across five continents have identified and ranked 15 sustainability opportunities
and in addition showcase 120 practical projects and solutions that already exist around the globe.
According to the report, smart water technology is perceived as the biggest market opportunity – and understanding the potential of smart water technology
opportunity and fully capitalising on it to deliver crucial services will represent a huge market opportunity. By 2021, the smart water tech market will be worth
$20.10 billion USD up from $8.46 billion USD in 2016
Smart water tech, using smart sensors and cloud data management to improve water infrastructure, will be critical in providing access to clean, safe water
for urban citizens around the world, the report says. As in 2015 and 2016, the report presents five global risks and 15 new sustainable market opportunities
that directly address them. The ranking of opportunities this year makes it clear that every business, regardless of sector or field, must invest in cutting-edge
digitisation to stay relevant. Blockchain technology and artificial intelligence are the backbones of two of the four top opportunities this year, illustrating that
all industries, including water, education, IT, and energy, will not just be disrupted by technological innovations – they’ll be entirely overtaken and reshaped.
Key findings on smart water opportunities include:
Newer and smarter products and services around smart water management is the best bet in reducing massive water losses in pipes and shrinking overall
water consumption. Smart sensors form the backbone of the products and services within the smart water opportunity space. Smart sensors on pipes and
other critical water management infrastructure have the ability to detect leaks, measure water related data, including rainfall, pH, temperature, turbidity, flow,
pressure, and even contamination levels.
As internet of things devices, smart sensors are Wi-Fi enabled, allowing data to be sent in real time to cloud storage. Therefore, to be truly effective, smart
sensors are integrated with advanced software systems capable of handling and managing these large datasets in real time. In doing so, municipalities can
utilise this data to improve service, stop leaks, and boost efficiency.
The report says the strength in this opportunity space is its ability to offer water utilities specific paths towards operating cost and carbon footprint reductions,
while improving service and supply management.
Page 4
Industry News

Servelec’s affinity with UK water industry extends with new
contract
Servelec Technologies, the leading provider of end-to-end data collection, control and optimisation solutions, has recently secured a significant contract with
Affinity Water, the UK’s largest water-only supplier, to replace their regional telemetry System with a new SCOPE SCADA system. In addition, Servelec Tech-
nologies will upgrade 450 outstations with the Seprol S2000 range of RTUs and provide 24/7 support for the scheme for the next five years.
The end-to-end upgrade of Affinity Water’s telemetry and automation provision replaces a competing legacy system and provides Affinity Water with the
very latest technology. As the whole solution is Water Industry Telemetry Standards (WITS) compliant it gives Affinity Water future flexibility of choice, elim-
inating vendor lock-in.
The implementation of the 450 S2000 RTUs will take place over nine months starting in early 2018, while the installation of the new SCADA system, using
Servelec’s SCOPE technology and Prism5 graphical user interface is already underway. SCOPE and Prism5 is built using HTML5 technology and provides op-
erators with visual real-time information and the ability to control their network from their mobile device.
The advantage of the Servelec designed solution, and key to Affinity Water’s future success, is how the new technology interfaces with existing hardware,
business planning and asset management systems; providing a holistic view of Affinity Water’s entire estate. In addition to creating an interface for opera-
tors, SCOPE’s real-time data mirroring capabilities enable Affinity Water’s stakeholders to make informed decisions with improved accuracy. This mirrored
data is ring-fenced from the operational telemetry system so that critical day-to-day operations are protected from support activity.
Gerald Doocey, Head of Technical Support at Affinity Water said: “We are delighted to work with Servelec to upgrade our SCADA platform and network of
outstations. As with many projects, reducing long-term costs was a key factor in our decision, but Servelec’s open platform and WITS compliancy was equally
important. The seamless way Servelec’s technology integrates with our existing infrastructure means the holistic view of operations will improve efficiency
across many aspects of our organisation for years to come.”
The system has been designed to meet Affinity Water’s current and future needs and integrates business systems with real-time status and alarm data, there-
by improving overall operational efficiency.
Neil Butler, Managing Director of Strategic Partnerships at Servelec Technologies added: “Our focus is always to help our customers improve their own pro-
cesses, and as a result, their service to their customers. We are looking forward to a new long-term working relationship with Affinity Water which is based
on continuing to develop and implement market-leading operational technology for the water industry.”
Promising results for metaldehyde detection trial
Affinity Water has taken an innovative approach to the detection of metaldehyde in a trial at a groundwater treatment works in Hertfordshire with promising
results. The water-only company has been working with Cambridge-based analytical technology specialists Anatune to trial their gas chromatography mass
spectrometry (GCMS) instrument, which can test for the presence of metaldehyde much quicker than existing laboratory methods. The trial, which is part
of Affinity Water’s Pesticide Programme research and development investigations, has been described by the water company as a ‘potential game changer’
for the water industry in dealing with metaldehyde, an active ingredient found in slug pellets which can make its way into surface water and groundwater.
While usually found in concentrations that are not harmful to health, metaldehyde is very difficult to remove from water sources using current treatment
processes such as filtration with Granular Activated Carbon (GAC).
It can currently take up to 10 working days for Affinity Water to obtain metaldehyde test results due to the sheer volume of samples analysed. This, coupled
with the design of a new metaldehyde treatment process, were the key drivers for the Affinity Water Pesticide Programme team to explore a new approach
to detecting metaldehyde in waters. Last year, Affinity’s Pesticide Programme team started speaking to Anatune about their Triple Quadrupole Gas Chroma-
tography Mass Spectrometry (GCMS) instrument with automated sample preparation. The team discovered that the GCMS instrument could provide metal-
dehyde results of raw, partially and fully treated water at water treatment works in just 36 minutes at the same very low concentrations normally associated
with laboratory data.
The GCMS instrument had been used for many years in a controlled laboratory environment but has never been installed and used at a treatment works to
aid the treatment process. In September 2016, an ‘online metaldehyde monitor’ trial began at a water treatment works in Hertfordshire. This instrument
is now operating 24/7 and is fully connected to telemetry software analysing metaldehyde concentrations from three separate inlets at different stages of
the treatment process. In 2020, Affinity Water will install a new treatment process to help manage metaldehyde levels at this site and this innovative online
monitoring approach will enable proactive abstraction management for metaldehyde and optimise treatment to manage chemical costs.
Affinity Water Asset Manager, Debbie Loftus-Holden said: “This trial is very exciting and is generating a lot of interest in the industry. This will allow us to
detect spikes of metaldehyde in raw water in real time and allow us to optimise our treatment processes accordingly. Early in 2017 we will be reviewing the
trial evidence and share it with the industry.”
“This new approach will work in conjunction with the new metaldehyde treatment process due to be installed by 2020 and catchment management to
ensure metaldehyde concentrations are reduced to acceptable levels.”
Ray Perkins, CEO of Anatune, added: “Working with Affinity Water has been a great opportunity to see how our GCMS instrument can be used in other ways
and we are excited by the promising results of this trial and the implications for the UK water industry.”
Page 5

NI Water misinterprets alarm ‘fault’
Misinterpreting storm chamber alarms during a sewage spillage has landed Northern Ireland Water with a £500 fine plus £15 Offender Levy.
NI Water was convicted by Newry Magistrates’ Court after it pleaded guilty for discharging untreated sewage from Islandbank Wastewater Pumping Station,
Newry, to the Newry Canal.
On July 13, 2015, a senior water quality inspector, acting on behalf of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA), responded to a report of pollution and
visited the wastewater pumping station. The inspector observed sewage-related debris on the roadway by the station and material, consistent with untreated
sewage, was discovered floating on the surface of the canal.
The inspector also observed a significant volume of untreated sewage over-topping the walls of the structure which was then passing under the front gate and
discharging to the Newry Canal.
Information provided by NI Water indicated that: “During the morning of 13 July 2015, the storm chamber alarms were received at the Telemetry Control
Centre, however, they were considered to be ‘fleeting’ in nature and interpreted as an instrument fault on site. As a result, the alarm received was not passed
out to the ‘on-call’ field manager [for action].”
Aclara acquires Smart Grid division of APEX Covantage
Aclara Technologies LLC (“Aclara”), a leading supplier of smart infrastructure solutions (SIS) to electric, gas and water utilities, has acquired the Smart Grid
Solutions (SGS) division of Apex CoVantage, LLC. The transaction includes the award-winning ProField® mobile workforce management technology used for
smart grid deployments as well as the Smart Grid Professional Services business comprising utility field services and consulting. Financial terms are not being
disclosed.
With this acquisition, Aclara now offers a comprehensive end-to-end solution including installation services and provision of field labour. This new capability
enables Aclara to provide full turnkey solutions to utilities that increase their productivity and reduce operating costs. Aclara’s comprehensive suite of solutions
comprised of meters and edge devices, advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), headend and consumer engagement software, installation services and provi-
sion of labour offers a single point of accountability to utilities.
“The addition of SGS’s highly regarded ProField technology and professional services business adds another game-changing dimension to our capabilities and
clearly demonstrates Aclara’s focus on being the world’s leading end-to-end full-service provider of smart infrastructure solutions,” said Allan Connolly, Chief
Executive Officer and President of Aclara.
Aclara will integrate both ProField and Smart Grid Professional Services into its portfolio of leading-edge solutions for electric, gas and water utilities under the
brand name Aclara SGS. Utilities that have selected the ProField technology include Consolidated Edison, Inc., Arizona Public Service (APS), and Habersham
Electric Membership Corporation (Habersham EMC).
The contract with Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. (CECONY) and Orange and Rockland (O&R) Utilities, Inc., both regulated operating companies of
Consolidated Edison, Inc., (NYSE: ED) includes the installation of electric smart meters and gas smart modules as part of a landmark plan to deploy Advanced
Metering Infrastructure (AMI) across Consolidated Edison’s and Orange & Rockland’s service territories. It also includes building the supporting communications
network in Orange & Rockland’s service territory. Approximately 3.9 million electric meters and 1.3 million gas meters are involved.
The SGS acquisition represents another key development for Aclara as the company continues to grow both the breadth of its solutions and its geographic
reach. It follows the August 2016 purchase of the smart grid business from Tollgrade Communications, Inc., which included the award-winning grid monitoring
platform comprising smart grid sensors and Predictive Grid® Analytics software. In December 2015, Aclara purchased the electric meters business operating
within GE Energy Management’s Grid Solutions subdivision, an acquisition that strengthened the company’s offering for electric utilities and increased its
international profile.
Thames Water raise £10 million OJEU Tender for FE Monitoring
In an OJEU tender that was released on 13th December the UK Water Company, Thames Water has released a tender and closed it in early January asking for
companies to tender for a lotted framework agreement with an estimated value of £10 million.
The OJEU notice listed their interest in a number of different parameters split into two lots over a period of time of up to 8 years (split to an initial three
year period up until the end of AMP 6 and then a potential for an extension until the end of AMP7. The potential framework was split into two lots which
included mandatory parameters in the first batch including Ammonium, Turbidity, Temperature, pH and Dissolved Oxygen and additional parameters on a site
by site basis in the second lot including Ammonia, Phosphorous (total and soluble), Metals (Iron and Aluminium), Nitrates, Chemical Oxygen Demand, Biological
Oxygen Demand and Conductivity.
The notice was only open for a very short time and was listed as having a deadline date of 6th January 2017.
The presence of this tender indicates that Thames Water are considering to go down the route of final effluent monitoring on at least some of it fleet of
wastewater treatment works following the example of both Southern Water & Severn Trent Water
Page 6

Anglian Water order is Mini-Cam’s largest for SOLOPro+ camera
SWW tests drones with thermal sensors to detect water leakage
World Economic Forum flags up water as a key global risk
South West Water (SWW), working with the University of Exeter, is test the use of drone technology and thermal imaging for leak detection. Laboratory tests
of the thermal cameras have proved positive and field-scale trials are planned for 2017.
The technology works by attaching a thermal sensor to a drone which is then flown along pipeline routes particularly in rural locations. The thermal sensor
can detect differences in soil temperature which can be caused by an escape of water.
SWW said that with 18,000kms of pipe, much of it in rural and remote areas, and more than a million service connections to customers the technology could
help reduce the cost of leak detection and repair by pinpointing more exactly the location of a leak, particularly in rural locations where traditional methods
are less effective.
The company is a leading company for tackling leakage, with performance twice as good as the UK water industry average for water lost per kilometre of main.
Leakage has reduced by 40% since the early 1990s and nowadays most visible leaks are repaired with 72 hours.
Bob Taylor, director of drinking water services, said: “Water is part of our region’s natural capital. It is a precious resource and, especially once it’s been treated,
we all need to use it wisely and not waste it. Finding a cost-effective method of finding large escapes of treated water has the potential to help save water and
make our service more efficient, which is why we’re continuing this trial with the university to test the technology on a landscape scale.”
The pilot is one of several projects that will be led by the new South West Partnership for Environment & Economic Prosperity (SWEEP), funded by the Natural
Environment Research Council.
The new institute will allow experts and businesses to work together to solve some of the challenges facing our natural environment and use the latest
research and technologies to boost our economy, create and defend jobs and enhance wellbeing in the region. This will drive sustainable economic growth,
help create new products and services, safeguard jobs and create new employment, improve policies, and enhance the health and wellbeing of people living
in the South-West.
The World Economic Forum has published the 12th Edition of its Global Risks Report for 2017 – with environmental concerns more prominent than ever and
water flagged up as a key risk. For the past seven editions of the report, a cluster of interconnected environment-related risks – including extreme weather
events, climate change and water crises – has consistently featured among the top-ranked global risks. The report says that the environmental category in the
Global Risks Perception Survey (GRPS) of the report this year stands out in the GRPS. This year all five risks in this category are assessed as being above average
for both impact and likelihood. Every risk in the category lies in the higher-impact, higher-likelihood quadrant.
Commenting on physical infrastructure networks, WEF says water could also transition from centralized networks towards more distributed systems. New
materials and sensor technologies allow treatment at the household or community level, creating opportunities to harvest rainwater and directly reuse waste
water. The report points out that for the time being, economies of scale still favour large, centralized plants in existing urban areas: they also allow utilities to
monitor water quality centrally and address failures quickly. Relying on localized water storage would also create challenges in prolonged periods of drought.
However, it goes on to suggest that centralized networks are costly to create, and the balance of costs and benefits is beginning to tip in favour of distributed
water systems if cities can be planned for these systems from the outset.
Page 7
Anglian Water has upgraded its pipeline inspection technology with the addition of 77 camera systems, which have been deployed across nine depots. The
order is the biggest to date for the new range of recording equipment which Mini-Cam launched last summer.
Mini-Cam has supplied its SOLOPro+ push cameras to Anglian Water sites in Basildon, Cambridge, Colchester, Grimsby, Ipswich, Kings Lynn, Milton Keynes,
Northampton and Norwich.
Greg Guest, UK sales manager at Mini-Cam, said: “We are very pleased to supply Anglian Water with our SOLOPro+ cameras to meet the company’s CCTV
requirements, and we will continue to provide a full back-up service. The commitment which Anglian has shown us with this latest investment cements our
strong and healthy working relationship.”
Jackie Allen, service improvement manager at Anglian Water, said: “We are really pleased with the new units from Mini-Cam, which substantially increase our
CCTV capabilities. They are easy to use, intuitive and provide pictures of great quality.
“We are also impressed by the safe construction of the units and the fact that they are among the lightest on the market. They offer good value for money
and have the extra items we need to be able to film a huge variety of sewers with one main piece of kit.”
Mini-Cam’s SOLOPro+ system has a host of new features designed to improve the user experience for efficient inspections and accurate reporting. Running off
mains or vehicle power, or an internal rechargeable six-hour battery, it is capable of capturing detailed footage under tough conditions.
Its interface offers robust tools such as observation entry and reporting options, and is designed to ensure the easy offload of data, video, images and reports.
The system is Wi-Fi enabled to allow remote access to stored images and data.

Bournemouth Water uses intelligent pressure management to
reduce network leakage
EU-funded project develops voice recognition for online security
The EU-funded OCTAVE project is developing an innovative voice verification system combined with user authentication as a cloud service that could replace
the use of passwords for online security.
OCTAVE researchers are developing an automatic speaker verification (ASV) system called the Trusted Biometric Authentication System (TBAS). TBAS’ unique
architecture makes it secure by design and virtually impossible for imposters to hack. It is also the first system to holistically combine speaker verification tech-
nology and distributed processing platforms to offer user authentication as a cloud service.
As a powerful computing facility equipped with the best processing technologies and algorithms, traditional ASVs are often protected by industrial secrets –
meaning not every service provider can afford them. Instead, many companies must look to a third-party broker. “To work, an ASV must be in the hands of a
trusted business player, a sort of authentication broker, similar to the well-consolidated payment brokers like PayPal that are now on the market,” says OCTAVE’s
technical leader Mauro Falcone.
TBAS provides the required level of trust, making voice authentication a viable option for small and medium-sized enterprises.
The password problem is one of the major challenges that the ICT sector is determined to solve. “One way forward is to get rid of passwords for good in favour
of user authentication based on biometric traits that are truly unique to each individual,” says OCTAVE’s project manager Sebastiano Trigila. Of the various
biometrics available (fingerprints, face and iris recognition, etc.), the project focuses on voice biometrics, which it considers to be the least intrusive.
Although it may be a non-intrusive solution, this doesn’t mean it is an easy one. “First, voice recognition faces such involuntary challenges as noisy
environments that induce distortion in voice acquisition,” explains Trigila. “There are also voluntary problems caused by potential attacks that, for example, can
fool traditional recognition systems with recorded voice samples from a legitimate speaker.”
With TBAS, the full set of service-related data is stored with the service provider and never passed on to the identity or authentication engine provider. The
identity and authentication providers only intervene when a user must be enrolled with biometric means and then recognised by those means. Instead, the
identity provider receives a pseudonym of the user identity and associates a second pseudonym that, along with biometric data, is then passed on to the
authentication provider. Both pseudonyms are created with non-reversible algorithms that make it nearly impossible to follow the inverse path from
authentication provider to service provider.
“As a result, any hacker, who might get hold of data in one of the two domains of the identity and the biometric authentication providers, will not be able to
make any meaningful use of it,” says Trigila.
An intermediate platform
According to Trigila, TBAS meets the challenge of creating a secure platform with respect to user data protection. More so, it serves as an intermediate platform
between service, identity and authentication engine providers.
As the project winds down, researchers see great potential for commercialising TBAS. “The ultimate objective of OCTAVE is to set up a voice authentication
service for all enterprises, large or small, that serves as a viable alternative to traditional methods based on passwords, tokens and smartcards,” concludes
Trigila.
The UK is one of seven EU countries taking part in the €5m+ project which concludes in May 2017.
Bournemouth Water has redesigned much of its network to use intelligent network calming and pressure management valves produced by IVL Flow Control to
reduce leakage.
The network supplying over half of the population served by Bournemouth Water is now covered by the new pressure management regime. Initially, 13 of the
company’s District Metering Areas (DMAs) were set up, with a further 50 DMAs covered by October 2016, significantly reducing leakage. The successful project
uses IVL Flow Control’s 2-way and 3-way pressure management valves and HWM Radcom Pegasus controllers. Bournemouth Water used fully calibrated network
models to forecast the benefits and to set targets which have been realised.
In April last year Bournemouth Water, which retains its name, was merged with South West Water following acquisition by the Pennon Group.
Paul Johnstone, Network Modelling Performance Manager at South West Water, commented:
“Capital investment in this project, using IVL Flow Control valves, has resulted in huge benefits, achieving reductions in leak and burst frequencies and creating a
more efficient and intelligent network”.
Craig Stanners, Director of IVL Flow Control, added:
“Bournemouth Water has been very forward-thinking in its decision to introduce state-of-the art pressure management, which sets a very good example for the
industry”.
Page 8

Imagine H2O Water Data Challenge Finalists Announced
Imagine H2O™, the water innovation accelerator, selected twelve startups to advance to its 8th annual Accelerator Program. Over 180 startups from 20
countries registered for the Challenge. The startups will join the organization’s growing portfolio of 70 alumni companies, which represent over $1 in every $10
of early-stage investment in the water sector.
A lack of actionable data poses significant challenges to businesses, landowners and governments managing water resources globally. Yet, entrepreneurs
responding to this problem are applying advancements in sensors, artificial intelligence, enterprise software and other IT applications to the water sector.
“Leveraging data innovation empowers communities and businesses to solve water challenges in a cost-effective manner,” said Imagine H2O’s VP of
Programming Tom Ferguson. “Our 2017 accelerator cohort is a diverse, scalable set of businesses providing crucial data and information to communities,
farms and companies.”
The twelve finalists will be honoured at Imagine H2O’s WaterGala ‘17 on March 15 in San Francisco, where the organization will announce the Challenge’s
overall winner.
“This is an impressive group of companies doing important work in their chosen area,” said Paul Gagliardo, Innovation Director at American Water and member
of the judging panel. “Scaling their business through Imagine H2O’s program will be a unique opportunity to bring their innovations to market.”
Imagine H2O provides a proven path-to-market for early-stage water companies, with participants benefiting from executive mentorship, market visibility,
investor introductions, and connections to Imagine H2O’s Beta Partners, a global network of companies and utilities committed to deploying water technology.
The twelve finalists advancing to Imagine H2O’s 2017 accelerator are Acoustic Sensing Technology (UK), AquaSeca, Arable Labs, EMAGIN, Flo Technologies,
FREDSense, Hydromodel Host (Spain), Lotic Labs, PlutoAI, Sutro, Triple Bottom Line Enterprises (Ethiopia) and Utilis (Israel). More details on each of the
companies is available here
Imagine H2O’s judging panel includes industry experts and leaders from, among others, XPV Water Partners, DC Water, True North Venture Partners, and IBM.
The judges selected the finalists based on market viability, value proposition, and go-to-market strategy. The program’s major financial supporters include
Wells Fargo (Headline Sponsor), Suez North America Foundation and Tetra Tech.
i2O Doubles Software Development For Smart Water Networks
i2O, the smart water network solutions company, announced recently that it has doubled the size of its software development team in the past 12 months to
ensure water utility clients can derive maximum value and insight about their networks.
During 2016 i2O hired ten new software developers, taking the number based at its Southampton headquarters to 20. The new recruits include skilled mobile,
cloud and ‘big data’ engineers with experience in the aerospace, utilities, media and security industries.
The expanded software team is led by Michael Saunders, i2O’s Head of Software Development, and will focus on the continuous enhancement of its cloud-
based platform, as well as developing analytics to provide water utilities with more actionable insight on their water network performance collected from
permanently deployed loggers.
Joel Hagan, CEO of i2O, comments: “We are striving constantly to develop new functionality that helps water utilities meet the challenges caused by
population growth, more frequent extreme weather events and increasingly demanding customers. The talent and capacity we now have in the business will
help us deliver greater functionality at pace and maximise the environmental, financial and customer service value that can be achieved through smart water
networks.”
Endress+Hauser Accredited as An Accredited Provider Of IACET
CEUs
The International Association for Continuing Education and Training (IACET) has awarded accreditation status to Endress+Hauser. IACET Accredited Providers
are the only organizations approved to offer IACET Continuing Education Units (CEUs). The accreditation period extends for five years, and includes all programs
offered or created during that time. These CEUs are recognized, accepted and, even required by many state agencies and credentialing organizations.
“Endress+Hauser is proud of our education programs which train instrument technicians and engineers from the process automation industry in important
installation, programming and troubleshooting skills so that our customers stay on the cutting edge,” stated Jerry Spindler, Customer and Field Service Training
Manager, Endress+Hauser. Spindler added, “Our partnership with IACET is a demonstration of our commitment to lifelong learning and high standards for all
of our programs, and we are very pleased to remain with such a prestigious organization and the elite group of organizations that offer excellent continuing
education and training programs.”
Upcoming classes in 2017 which offer CEUs at Endress+Hauser include I-101 Basic instrumentation in January, March, June, and September in Greenwood, IN.
Endress+Hauser completed a rigorous application process, including a review by an IACET site visitor, to achieve its Accredited Provider accreditation. The
organization successfully demonstrated adherence to the ANSI/IACET 1-2013 Standard addressing the design, development, administration, and evaluation of
its programs. Endress+Hauser has pledged its continued compliance with the Standard, and is now authorized to use the IACET name and Accredited Provider
logo on promotional course material. In addition, Endress+Hauser is now linked to the IACET web site and is recognized as offering the highest quality continuing
education and training programs.
Page 9

Opinion:
The year gone by.....
and the year to come
Every year a number of people will look back at the year gone by, what the major developments have been and what we should expect in the year moving
forward. This is my round up of what we have learnt in 2016 and some of the interesting things and developments we should expect in 2017. To me the major
question for 2016 is that we have a “Smart Water Industry,” we have the solutions and they have been working for some time now so why isn’t the industry
adopting them more often, why aren’t the solutions being used. We also had the continuation of the phenomenon of the concept of “Big Data,” my counter to
this last year was its all very well but the quality of that data has to be good as well. On top of that we had the subjects of telemetry protocols, WITS-DNP3 and
WITS- IOT start to be discussed a bit more and then of course the subject of Cyber Security became all that more important.
Some of the things we talked about in 2016 and where we talked about them
So, what were the things that we talked about in 2016 in WIPAC Monthly and the conference circuit that exists out there. It was a busy year with conferences
such as WEX Global, Smart Water Systems, Smart Water Networks conferences, the Leading Edge Technology Conference and of course the IT & Water/WWEM
Conferences at the end of the year not forgetting of course the highly successful Flow Forum. It was a wealth of conferences from the normal calendar that could
see someone fly around the world going from conference to conference (I was certainly invited to many more but I had to say no to some!). For me the main
themes that came out of the various discussions of the year included:
• Water 4.0 and the Internet of Things
• The role of a Smart Water Industry in the global Smart City Initiative
• WITS DNP3 and of course the release of WITS – IOT
• The importance of Cyber Security
• Various developments of Instrumentation especially different ways of interacting with it
• The progress of Smart Water Metering and the affects that this is having on the Smart Water Networks
• My personal mission on if we are going to do “Big Data,” then let’s do it properly and get the data right first
To touch on a few of these subjects is important and gives an overall direction of travel for the Water Industry as a whole. You couldn’t move this year without
hearing about Water 4.0, the Internet of Things and of course Cyber Security and in reality, this is something that has been around for a few years now and with
the development of the “Smart Home” environment will continue to develop. It does come with risks though and in October 2016 we saw Smart Home devices
used in a massive online attack. If we bring this into the various works of the industry the risk of an impact on the customer is high.
So where does this all fit in, where does the Smart Water Meter fit in with Amazon’s Alexa and how does this talk to the Smart Samsung Fridge that shows you
what is inside it when you are standing at your local supermarket and your phone is telling you that you are already late for dinner. Is this the Internet of Things
or Industry 4.0 and what is Industry 4.0? What happened to 1.0-3.0 and surely this is all a bit more fuss and bluster. It was something I covered in an article that
was published in Water Online and is summarised below:
So, what is Industry 4.0?
It is a collective term for technologies and concepts of value chain organization. Based on the technological concepts of cyber-physical systems, the
Internet of Things (IoT), and the Internet of Services, it facilitates the vision of the Smart Factory. Within the modular structured Smart Factories of Industry 4.0,
cyber- physical systems monitor physical processes, create a virtual copy of the physical world, and make decentralized decisions. Over the IoT, cyber-physical
systems communicate and cooperate with each other and humans in real time. Via the Internet of Services, both internal and cross-organizational services are
offered and utilized by participants of the value chain.
It is based upon six design principles:
Interoperability – The ability of cyber-physical systems (i.e., work piece carriers, assembly stations, and products), humans, and Smart Factories to connect and
communicate with each other via the IoT and the Internet of Services.
Virtualization – A virtual copy of the Smart Factory which is created by linking sensor data (from monitoring physical processes) with virtual plant models and
simulation models.
Decentralization – The ability of cyber-physical systems within Smart Factories to make decisions on their own.
Real-Time Capability – The capability to collect and analyse data and provide the insights immediately.
Service Orientation – Offering of services (of cyber-physical systems, humans, and Smart Factories) via the Internet of Services.
Modularity – Flexible adaptation of Smart Factories for changing requirements of individual modules.
The “cyber-physical system(s)” (CPS) element of this can be defined as a system of collaborating computational elements controlling physical entities. CPS are
physical and engineered systems whose operations are monitored, coordinated, controlled, and integrated by a computing and communication core. They allow
us to add capabilities to physical systems by merging computing and communication with physical processes.
Application to the Water Industry
Industry 1.0 through 4.0 all apply to the manufacturing industry, and for that industry it is relatively simple: something is being fabricated and put together
utilizing distinct parts. The water industry is actually quite different; be it potable water or wastewater, it is being cleaned for discharge either to the customer’s
tap or back to the environment. In reality, operationally, does Industry 4.0 apply to the water industry or are we trying to force concepts from another industry
Page 10

onto the water industry and creating something that doesn’t quite work?
Possibly, but let’s play around with the design principles briefly and see where we get and see how far the water industry is with the concepts.
Interoperability – The way that I read interoperability is the ability of water industry operators to connect, communicate, and work with the treatment,
collection, and distribution systems to find out what is going on and be able to connect remotely. If you ignore the concept of doing this over the internet, it
is arguable that we already have the ability to do this through SCADA systems. In some ways you can almost say the water industry has achieved this on large
treatment works and, in some aspects, with distribution systems; however, we are nowhere near the interoperability concept on smaller treatment works and
collection systems.
Rating: It’s a ‘yes’ ...at least in parts of the industry
Virtualization – A virtual copy of the Smart Factory — arguably a yes in the water industry box. We have telemetry systems which at least allow us to see what
is going on. ‘Advanced’ wastewater treatment works have process models that control aspects of the treatment works; and in both advanced distribution
and collection systems, we even have model-based simulation models. It is certain that the technology is not quite there yet on a company-wide, basis but in
pockets in the water industry it certainly works and is in place.
Rating: Not far off
Decentralization – The ability of the treatment works and network systems to control themselves - Again, arguably this already exists. We, as an industry, have
elements of treatment works that are more than capable of controlling themselves through monitoring and control systems; we have pumping stations that
based upon the signals from level controllers will control pass forward pumps; we have programmable logic controllers (PLCs) that act as control centres for
treatment works or individual parts of treatment works.
Rating: A big tick …perhaps?
Real-Time Capability – The capability to collect and analyse data and provide the insights immediately - Hmmm... How do you define immediately? Is it
applicable to the water industry? Is immediately necessary? This is an area where the water industry can definitely develop in. The basics can be said to be
done; we have the ability to alarm out if something is wrong, and even the potential to react to the alarm remotely (on some systems) to repair the
potential problem. Under Water 4.0 and the principles of Visualization and Decentralization, the system should, of course, react itself. There is the potential
for real-time or even near-time capability (as applicable to the industry), but to be fair this is an area where the water industry could grade itself as “An area
for improvement.”
Rating: An area for improvement
Service Orientation – We’re a service industry, so this is absolutely a ✓ in the box …or is it? Well, actually probably not.
• Water meters are mostly manually read once or twice a year.
• Customer bills and other customer communications are mostly paper-based and come through the mail, although some communication is through
social media.
• Customer queries are handled over the telephone, although text messaging, social media, and texting to mobile phones are becoming more popular.
• Customer analytics are rare at best, although with the advent of smart metering this is an area that the industry is actively pursuing and improving in.
Rating: An area where improvements are being made, but generally could do better
Modularity – A flexible approach? Changing requirements? Does this design principle apply? Are we already doing it? Again, arguably the answer is yes. If you
look at some large wastewater treatment works, they design final settlement tanks of the same size, the same shape, and only vary in number. The control
systems of an individual tank will be exactly the same as the control system for the tank next door to it. Some of the water companies in the UK have their
control system libraries so that they can take a control module from the “library” and apply it, with a little bit of tweaking, to site requirements. So has the water
industry achieved the design principle of modularity? Arguably, perhaps, but certainly not across the whole industry, and perhaps not if you are going to take
a purist view of Industry 4.0 — but from a Water 4.0 point of view, it’s a definite maybe.
Rating: Getting there
Purely going on the design principles of Industry 4.0, we can argue that Industry 4.0 does apply to the water industry and so, as a concept, at least Water 4.0 is
a direction that we should be at least moving towards and in parts have actually achieved.
The question is where does all of this fit in with concepts such as WITS and how things are all communicated, it is an important thing that most people in the
industry when you say telemetry think, that’s what we have a telemetry team for and the sort out all of that complicated cabling stuff that gets all of the data
from the site to the screen in front of me…it happens by magic doesn’t it? This is of course where the Water Industry Telemetry Standard comes in and it
something that has been developing for some time now. In the past, it has been WITS-DNP3 and now we also have WITS-IoT. A short definition is
The WITS-DNP3 protocol defines a standard method to achieve the water industry telemetry control and monitoring requirements, in particular
interoperability between equipment from different manufacturers. The standard defines how to satisfy water industry specific functional requirements using
features of the DNP3 protocol. As we can see it looks at the interoperability issue that forms part of Industry/Water 4.0. It is something that will develop moving
forward as both instrumentation and platforms grow into a common standard for telemetry.
All of this is important as the Water Industry fits into the Global Smart Cities initiative. As I’ve already said we are seeing the development of the Smart Home,
we are also seeing the development of self-driving cars, intelligent motorways and carriageways as well as the possibility of inner city smart parking that sees
you diverted to the nearest available parking space when you arrive near your destination (invaluable when you are running late for the start of the conference
Page 11

in the centre of Birmingham or Manchester and you haven’t a clue where you are). This is the vision that some of the international water companies are having
for the global water industry
Instrumentation developments have been interesting this year and in fact the philosophy of instrumentation is diverging. On one hand, we are seeing the
development of multi-functioning instruments that are relatively expensive (in the region of tens of thousands of pounds) and these instruments are verging on
being control systems. The instruments are relatively complex and provide multiple functions, health checks and everything you could want. All the way to the
other extreme where you buy a sensor that is in the low hundreds of pounds which gives you a number and not much else apart from a way to communicate
with it. Towards the end of the year I certainly saw the methodology of communication with instrumentation change with more emphasis on phone or tablet
applications and communication either direct by cable into the instrument or by technologies such as Bluetooth.
Staying on the subject of instrumentation and metering in particularly we had a year where we found out about a number of Smart Water Meter projects. In
the UK it is Thames Water who have a target to install a Smart Water meter throughout their customer base by 2030. This is mainly driven as the gap between
supply and demand is widening and the use of Smart Water metering is something that has been proven to save between 12-18% of the demand of water
from customers on a long terms basis. However, the problem that has been experienced hasn’t been in the installation of meters, something that the Water
Industry is very experienced at but has been in the management of all of the data and converting it into useful information for the customer. It has required
major upgrades of the systems designed to handle all of the data that is coming in. An interesting point and a question to ask for the future – do we as an
industry have the IT structure to handle a vast increase in customer data.
This brings us on to the last subject area of 2016 and something that we will continue to discuss moving forward and that is the quality of the data that we
collect. I have had several people argue with me that if the quality of the data can be filled in with some clever mathematics if you have at least some good
quality data that you can hang things from. Of course it does rely on at least some good quality data being collected and the answer is often….if data is wrong
then it is very wrong and can’t be relied upon. This is where the support of the instrumentation manufacturer’s come in. A few days ago a supplier asked upon
the LinkedIn Group –
“What can we, as instrument manufacturers, do to persuade customers that instrument Fault shouldn’t be the first diagnosis”
Of course the answer is to work with the engineers of the industry to select the right instrument for the right job and advise how it needs to be installed in the
right way and support when the technician says and “how does this work then,” that way instrumentation gets accepted, valued and the first diagnosis is that
the instrument is wrong (it is about 10% of the time in my experience and then it’s usually due to a powercut).
Looking forward to 2017
What did we learn in 2016 and how is it going to affect 2017? The major thing is that it should be more of the above. There are some interesting developments
coming in 2017 and these include:
• Further developments in the measurement of BOD as the potential of accurate low level analysis of Tryptohphan as a surrogate to BOD has the potential of
becoming something that is actively used
• Final Effluent monitoring – It is something that some Water Companies in the UK have adopted, firstly Southern Water and then since then Severn Trent
Water. The rumours around the industry is that Thames Water are heading in this direction with the release of an OJEU tender at the end of 2016
• Further developments and adoption of the WITS Protocol in the UK
• Further developments in the “Smart Water Industry,” as the demands and needs of the domestic environment and the industry’s customer needs for the
industry to be “smarter” than it currently is
• The release of a Wastewater Tool by the SWAN Forum covering both the wastewater network but also wastewater treatment as well
One of the major factors that we will see develop in 2017 is the development of instrumentation. It is no coincidence that the largest Water Company in the
UK (by population) has recently released an OJEU tender for final effluent instrumentation clearly showing their intention to follow both Southern Water and
Severn Trent Water in the monitoring of final effluent discharges from Wastewater treatment works covering over 25% of the customer discharges in the UK.
What is interesting next year is the measurement of Biochemical Oxygen Demand, the main parameter that is monitored in the Water Industry. It is something
that I have debated in the past as to whether it should be replaced. The feedback only 18 months ago was that it has the potential but is not sensitive enough
at low levels. It seems now that development has happened and the development of newer sensors may solve the question as to whether or not BOD has a
future in the Water Industry as consents get to a level where the wet laboratory method starts to become redundant.
To move away from the level of instrumentation and up to the wider industry there is the question as to where the Water Industry and especially the
wastewater industry fits into the Smart Water Industry as a whole and this is a question that I am sure that a number of water companies around the world
have asked themselves. Last year we were asked to MAD - to Measure, Analyse & Decide by Pernille Ingildsen & Gustaf Olsson and this is the fundamental of
where we should be going as an industry. But what do we measure and where? It is something that has been done very well over the last few years in the Water
Distribution Network and those that have adopted it have seen the amount of water losses decrease as the solution was very visible as were the benefits. In
the wastewater industry these drivers are less visible and as such the adoption of Smart Solutions have not been what they should be.
Saying this the Water Industry is starting to look at it and look at data & information more seriously than it has been in the past. This will form the fundamental
basis of Water 4.0 within the Water Industry. Arguably it has already started and 2017 will be a continuation of what is already happening. The importance
within the Water Industry is to gather the good ideas, put them into practice and learn where they bring benefits and where they do not.
Mistakes will be made, but only a few years ago, the internet didn’t really exist in its current form, mobile phones were the size of a briefcase let alone
controlling your home from it and the very thought of self-driving cars was real science fiction. As the customer gets used to all of these home conveniences so
will the customer expect more from the utilities that supply them. The mistakes need to be made, lessons need to be learnt and developments and changes to
the way we work, as an industry, need to happen. The journey has already started now is the time to hop onto the bus.
Page 12

Application Note:
Flow Rate Measurement in
full pipes using the
Transit Time Method
Particularly in large diameters the relevance of water volume measurement is growing. The challenge with cooling water or fresh water processes is to
generate accurate flow recordings or to document and to control individual consumptions and withdrawal quantities. Flow detection, however, particularly
in large diameters is highly demanding. In such cases the transit time measurement thanks to its high flexibility as a reliable and cost-efficient measurement
system is literally made for permanent flow metering.
Securing the Water Supply
The requirement for many processes is to feed as little fresh water as possible. Water feed and withdrawal volumes need to be monitored constantly as well.
All these tasks require to permanently investigate and to verify flow rates. Integration into higher systems (such as SCADA systems) is indispensable since the
systems are generally used within large areas.
Conception and Selecting the Measurement System
To ensure constant flow recording it is necessary to use a measurement system capable of determining the medium velocity covering the entire wetted area.
This is important particularly with fluctuating flow conditions. Many measurement systems commonly used either feature spot velocity measurement only or
do provide the required penetration depth. Quite simply, some measurement systems cause too much costs or require too many employees when it comes
to installation. Measuring high medium velocities to many systems is an impossible task, too. A cost-efficient method to obtain reliable information on the
prevailing discharge / flow is the measurement using the ultrasonic transit time difference principle. Such systems stand out for low maintenance expenses and
high operational safety. They can be flexibly used with all needed sizes and media. Compared to other methods, the measurement system moreover has the
advantage to be largely independent of the properties of the media to measure such as electrical conductivity, fluctuating temperatures or viscosity.
This measurement principle is based on directly measuring the transit time of an acoustic signal between two ultrasonic sensors. Such sensors are also
described as hydro-acoustic converters (A and B in the illustration below). Two sonic impulses are transmitted successively after each other and the different
transit times between transmitter and receiver are measured. The impulse heading downstream (t2) reaches the receiver sooner than the impulse heading
upstream (t1).
The required times are measured by utilising highly accurate time measurements as well as a signal correlation. This signal correlation compares the
transmitted signal with the signal received by the opposite converter. The comparison therefore enables to determine the accurate moments of transmission
and reception of the measurement signal. The difference between both determined times is proportional to the average flow velocity within the measurement
path.






⋅
⋅
−
=
αcos221
21 L
tt
tt
v
t1= Impulse time against flow direction
t2= Impulse time in flow direction
L= Transit time / distance between sensors
By using this formula it is possible to determine the average cross-sectional velocity and hence the flow rate from the measured average velocities within the
individual layers related to the according velocity coefficients.
gvAkQ ⋅⋅=
Q= flow rate
k= measurement place-specific correction factor
A= wetted area
vg= average velocity
The more measurement paths are used, the more information on the flow profile prevailing at the measurement spot can be gained. The total flow rate in this
case is the total of the individual flow rates. Using multiple measurement paths hence will increase the accuracy of the flow rate determination. Arranging the
sensors of a multi-path measurement crosswise reduces the effects of disturbing flows crossing the main flow direction. Cross flows may cause
measurement errors. Using a multi-path measurement setup may also reduce the length of intake and discharge sections required to calm down the flow
profile at the measurement point.
Schematic illustration of transit time difference principle
Page 13

Thanks to novel CFD models (Computational Fluid Dynamics) and comprehensive testing at renowned institutes,
influence and behaviour of flow profiles downstream of standard disturbances could be examined. Based on
the results it is now possible to integrate flow profiles downstream of elbows and other disturbances into
calculation models directly in the transmitter of the measurement system. Only the type of disturbance and the
distance to the measurement spot need to be specified. From these specifications the measurement
automatically determines the correction factors to use. The result of the flow measurement is therefore highly
accurate and can be even used together with shorter calming and intake sections.
The new NIVUS GmbH device types allow using the transit time method both as invasive measurement
and clamp-on system. Here the type of sensor used must be selected depending on the situation on the
measurement place. Highest measurement accuracy can be achieved by using a multi-path system with wetted
sensors in a defined arrangement. If it is not possible to insert the sensor into the process (abrasive, corrosive or
other problematic media), the sensors can be installed on the pipeline from the outside without process
interruption (clamp-on measurement system).
Implementing a Measurement
Tasks of the example depicted: long-term recording of flow rate and flow velocity for archiving in a distribution system operator’s drinking water supply pipeline.
Accuracy requirements in this case are very high since the measurement place is to be used for billing purposes. A NivuFlow 600 system with invasive
sensors by NIVUS GmbH was used. The sensors were inserted into the pipe by using tapping nozzles. This is how the readings could be provided to the
following SCADA system with the required level of accuracy via data connection. The variety of sensors and installation material allows picking up readings at
various measurement spots.
A very minimalistic approach can be followed in terms of spare parts stock: no need to stock diameter-specific parts, one measurement system for almost all
pipe diameters and measurement places.
Summary
Flow measurements based on the ultrasonic transit time difference principle have not only undergone many years of extensive testing. They have also proven
successful in practical use and stand out for a high level of accuracy and flexibility in terms of applicability in various measurement places. Thanks to robustness
and ease of maintenance the ultrasonic transit time principle is perfectly suitable for both measuring in pipes with smaller diameters (such as process water
or cooling water) as well as for permanent measurements on demanding measurement sites (such as large pipe diameters, hydro-electric plants, high process
water volumes and varying media). With new-generation devices, however, the benefits of the method have been significantly extended. Among other things,
measurement ranges and accuracies of flow measurements have been increased considerably.
References
EN ISO 6416 (2005), Messung des Abflusses mit dem Ultraschallverfahren (akustisches Verfahren)
EN ISO 748:2000 (2000), Durchflussmessung in offenen Gerinnen
Dr. Solliec, Laurent. (2013). Real time flow rate modelling in disturbed conditions from velocity profilers. Strasbourg.
Technische Unterlagen der Fa. NIVUS GmbH, Eppingen (2016)
CFD-model of a disturbance (elbow)
Transmitter and various sensor types
About the Author
Ralf Brüning is a product manager within Nivus, a company that specialises in area-velocity flow measurement whether
by using their own cross-corelation in channel method or more recently their transit time methodology.
Nivus’ product portfolio, among other devices, includes units for flow measurement, flow velocity detection, level
measurement, pressure measurement and water quality measurement. Moreover the product range comprises software
for recording, logging and evaluation of data. The range of products is completed by an extensive process control system.
One of the NIVUS main areas is flow measurement as well as the various flow meters.
Page 14

WirelessHART®
networks:
7 myths that cloud
their consideration
for process control
Misinformation about WirelessHART networks prevails among many instrument engineers in the process industries. This article attempts to set the record
straight by debunking 7 myths about these networks.
Myth 1: WirelessHART is unsafe
False. WirelessHART is safe. But why? A variety of tools make this so.
Encryption—A WirelessHART network always encrypts communications. The network uses a 128-bit AES encryption system (Advanced Encryption Standard)—a
standard in several fields of wired communication. The encryption cannot be disabled. The security manager in the WirelessHART gateway administers three
parameters. The parameters include:
• Network ID,
• Join key and
• Session key.
Integrating a WirelessHART transmitter into a network requires a network ID and join key. After these are entered, the transmitter first searches for the network
with the right ID. If it finds such a network, it sends a “Join Request” message with the key configured. The WirelessHART gateway checks the join key of the
transmitter. If correct, the network accepts the transmitter. A session key encrypts the communication. Every network subscriber gets a separate session key. So
it is possible only to be accepted into a network with the join key, but this does not decrypt the encrypted communication of the other subscribers.
Access list—After completing commissioning, the acceptance of new network subscribers can be disabled. In this way, no new network subscriber can be
integrated into the network even if the network ID and the join key are correct. To integrate a new subscriber, this function can either be disabled or the UID
(Unique Identifier = unique device serial number) of the network subscriber can be entered manually into the gateway. A network subscriber that does not
appear in the subscriber list of the gateway is also ignored by the other network subscribers when messages are forwarded.
Join counter—If a WirelessHART transmitter is integrated into a network, it records this information in the so-called join counter. If the device is restarted and
if it joins the same network, its join counter is increased. Both the network subscriber and the gateway have a join counter. They cannot be read out. If a device
now tries to integrate into a network with a join counter that does not match the gateway, the gateway declines it. As a result, it is not possible to substitute one
device with another without this being noticed, even if both have the same UID.
Nonce counter—Each transmitted message has a nonce counter. This is composed, among others, of the UID and the number of messages sent by the
transmitter so far. Each message is marked uniquely with this mechanism. If a message gets intercepted to resend it again later, it will be identified as outdated
and thus rejected. This technique obstructs any manipulation in the communication.
Modifying the network parameters—The network parameters, network ID and join key can only be changed by the gateway itself or at a WirelessHART
transmitter locally via a service interface or the display. No network subscriber or hacker in the network can modify this information.
Myth 2: Wireless is too expensive2. WirelessHART networks are too expensive
Yes, WirelessHART devices are more expensive than wired HART devices. But, more importantly, how do costs for the overall communication investment
compare? WirelessHART devices are more expensive because:
• they contain ultra low power electronics to get long battery life
• they require measures to achieve explosion protection
• they use high frequency components.
But the whole solution must be considered, not just the devices. The solution involves engineering hours, labour hours and material.
Infrastructure for wired devices—The measurement signal of a new wired device usually must be connected to a PLC or DCS to use the data. This is either done
by system’s local I/O, a remote I/O system or a fieldbus connection. While this is easy during a new installation (greenfield), this could rise to a challenge for an
existing installation (brownfield). To add the new component, spare capacity must exist (free slots, channels, terminals). Another issue concerns
bringing the wires from the measurement to the I/O, requiring routing and protection of the device cabling, junction boxes, cable trays and glands, and all of
their accessories. All this infrastructure must be ordered, prepared and installed. Also an accessible location must be found. Otherwise this access must be
gained by other means, such as by setting up a scaffold tower.
Engineering and labour costs—Before all this, engineers must develop a plan involving where cables can run, which I/O makes sense, and how this work can be
executed. The documentation must be continuously updated to track the location of wires.
Hazardous areas—These areas further increase the difficulty and efforts compared with general purpose areas. Engineers must consider local conditions and
technical issues. An expert in explosion protection must verify the planned installation, including a secure power supply and zone separation.
Page 15

Wireless device break-even points—Of course, some planning and installation is also necessary for a WirelessHART network. The chief difference involves the
effort since only the WirelessHART gateway requires a powered installation. Local conditions will determine affordability. The WirelessHART devices can be
installed in whatever way optimizes the measurement. And separation of explosion zones happens by default since no physical connection exists between the
zones apart from the mechanics (e.g. a thermowell).
But how much could be saved? The wireless solution gains a breakeven point for the first installation of three or four WirelessHART devices plus one
gateway. For example, consider take a well-known device, a monitored heat-exchanger having two inputs and two outputs. The heat exchanger will need four
temperature transmitters. So assume:
• 4 temperature transmitters,
• a distance of 100 meters between control room and the scheduled junction box and
• 10 meters of cables between the junction box and each transmitter.
Realizing this solution will account about US$ 20,000, where just 20% represents the cost of the temperature transmitters. In the case of wireless, assume:
• 4 temperature transmitters and
• a distance of 10 meters between control room and the WirelessHART gateway.
Realizing this solution will cost about USD15,000, where 80% represents the cost of the WirelessHART devices and the gateway.
So the wireless solution saves 25% compared the wired one. And it will save even more in time. In fact, this solution could be available in a quarter of time. And
the next heat exchanger? Wired, it will cost an additional USD20,000. Wireless, it will just add the cost of the new WirelessHART devices since the gateway is
already available.
While you could get three wireless solutions for the price of two wired solutions, you could get four wireless solutions in the same time as one wired solution!
Myth 3: WirelessHART networks are unreliable
A communication link for process control or even monitoring must be reliable and available as needed. Everyone knows examples of communication
failures just when needed. So can a wireless communication ever be reliable? Surprisingly it can be more reliable than cable. This is achieved by using a time-
synchronized, frequency hopping, meshed network.
Meshed network—As mentioned earlier, every network has a gateway that transforms the wireless data into wired data ready for a DCS or PLC. Most
wireless communication has a star architecture, meaning all network participants connect only to the star centre or head. WLAN and mobile phone
communication are prominent examples for a star topology. WirelessHART has a mesh, rather than a star, architecture. Within a meshed network the
participants are communicating with the gateway and additionally among one another. Furthermore, the wireless devices tell the gateway which other
participants they can communicate with.
Other wireless participants in range are called neighbours. The gateway analyses information about neighbours and creates a routing table. This table contains
the information about which network participant has which neighbours. As participants can reach each other, they can also route the data packets from and to
their neighbours. In this way, the gateway can create redundant communication paths for each network participant. Should one communication path fail, the
sender will automatically switch to a redundant path. Since each transmitted packet must be acknowledged by its receiver, it’s easy to recognize a broken link.
RSSI and path stability—The radio signal strength indicator (RSSI) indicates the quality of a communication link to the gateway. Knowing this, the gateway can
determine if enough reserve strength is available or if the signal level is already too low. Since the gateway gets the RSSI of each single communication link, it
can readily distinguish between high and low level signals. Additionally, the gateway counts the data packets lost during transmission for each link. By
comparing the total number of transmitted packets within a network, the gateway can recognize paths with high losses and retransmissions. It uses both
kinds of information to identify good or bad paths in a network. So the gateway now can pick the good paths that the network participants should use to
communicate.
FHSS and DSSS—To ensure reliability, WirelessHART makes use two techniques: Frequency Hopping Spread Spectrum (FHSS) and Direct Sequence Spread
Spectrum (DSSS). WirelessHART is a frequency hopper in its 2.4 GHz band. After each transmission between two network participants, the radio channel
changes. Hopping across multiple frequencies is a proven way to sidestep interference and overcome RF challenges. Should a transmission be blocked, the
next transmission will be to an alternate participant on a different frequency. The result is simple but extremely resilient in the face of typical RF interference.
DSSS transmits more information than necessary. It sends eight bits for each single information bit. Every bit is encrypted in such a way that the main bit is
restored even if less than half of the eight bits are received. This makes the communication more robust against short disturbances and data does not need to
be re-transmitted, which saves time, bandwidth and energy.
Redundancy—Because each WirelessHART device can route data for other devices, it is possible to set up a network topology with redundant paths for each
network participant. Having at least three independent and good communication paths ensures a reliable communication with the gateway. The gateway can
determine all information concerning topology, network traffic, and quality of the communication paths.
Myth 4: The range of WirelessHART networks is too short
A common question concerns the maximum distance that can be covered by WirelessHART. Answers relating to surroundings and obstructions sometimes
confuse the issue. What range does a WirelessHART device actually need to achieve? The practical answer revolves around the network setup, bandwidth, and
repeaters.
Network setup—The ultimate aim of the network is to get the wireless data to a gateway that transforms it into wired data ready for a DCS or PLC. A properly
Page 16

setup WirelessHART network has at least three devices within range of each other, including the gateway. This ensures a reliable connection to the gateway.
In addition, the gateway should be located towards the middle of the network. Otherwise devices near the gateway become pinch points that shorten battery
life and risk network failure.
Following these recommendations for network setup should provide coverage of nearly 200 feet, even in a highly obstructed area. In reality coverage will
often expand to 300 feet. Large installations will include installing more measuring points. This automatically expands the network coverage as every new
WirelessHART device will route the communication for other devices.
Frequency spectrum and bandwidth—To minimize power consumption, reduce the number of device transmissions to whatever is necessary to serve an
application. It’s important to keep the number of re-transmissions as low as possible, too. To avoid collisions, WirelessHART uses time-division multiple access.
This means each link has its unique time slot to communicate. If this link fails for some reason, transmission passes to another link.
WirelessHART uses the license-free 2.4GHz ISM band. This band can be used by any other application as well (Industrial, Scientific and Medical Band). So
WirelessHART must share its bandwidth with all other technologies working in the same band. And this will cause collisions and re-transmissions for each
device within the network since these different networks are not synchronized to each other (WLAN, Bluetooth etc.).
To keep the network reliable and stable, time slots for re-transmissions must be reserved even if rarely needed. Faster update rates of a device require more
time slots, and the total available network bandwidth decreases. In fact, having an update rate of 1 second could easily result in a maximum amount of 12
devices within one gateway. As an alternative, operating two WirelessHART networks in parallel is possible, but this will also lead to collisions, reducing the
bandwidth of both networks. As opposed to one long range network, having two short-range networks covering different areas with only a small overlapping
areas will increase their stability and device battery lifetime.
Repeater or routing device—Sometimes a measuring point is too far away from a network to connect. This can be corrected by installing additional routing
devices. Any WirelessHART device will do, but the best fit is a device that is small, requires minimum effort to install, and provides an easily replaceable
battery.
Myth 5: Wireless constantly needs batteries5. WirelessHART devices constantly need new batteries
What would a wireless device be that requires a power cord—not completely wireless of course. So an independent and reliable power supply is mandatory.
Batteries can fulfil this requirement, but with the disadvantage of their finite energy. For sure, dead batteries must be replaced to get a battery powered de-
vice running again. But how big is this disadvantage really?
ABB’s WirelessHART devices use an industrial-standard D-size primary cell. This cell was especially designed for extended operating life over a wide
temperature range of -55°C to +85°C to fulfil the requirements of process industries. But how much lifetime is achievable? It depends. Battery life is not
predictable as a hard fact. Rather it behaves like the fuel consumption of a car. Some need more, some need less, depending on acceleration and speed,
vehicle weight, and traffic.
To maximize battery life, ABB electronics have an ultra-low power design—less by a factor of 20 compared to a conventional 4-20 mA HART device. All
components have been chosen by their functionality and their current consumption. The design goal is to consume the minimum energy possible, including
software. For example, sub-circuits power down if not needed. So the sensor itself powers down between two measurements as well as the display. If the
update rate is slow enough, the device will fall into a “deep-sleep mode” between two measurements as often as possible
The update rate is the user-defined interval at which a wireless device initiates a measurement and transmits the data to the gateway. The update rate has
the largest impact on battery life—the faster the update rate, the lower the battery life. This means the update rate must be as slow as possible, but still meet
the needs of the application. Depending on the time constant of the process variable, the update rate should be 3 to 4 times faster for monitoring open loop
control applications and 4 to 10 times faster for regulatory closed loop control and some types of supervisory control.
A special attention should be spent for update rates faster than four seconds. These faster rates will prevent the device from going into the deep-sleep mode.
They will consume much more power as well, impacting the total number of devices that can be handled by one gateway.
Burst command setup—All WirelessHART devices are able to burst up to three independent HART commands. Of course, the update rate of each command
could be setup separately. But as described before, the device tries to fall into deep-sleep mode as much as possible. By default, the update rates are set up
as multiples of each other, giving the device the best conditions to save as much energy as possible.
Network topology—Mesh-functionality can also influence the battery life since each device has routing capability. If one device acts as a parent for another
device and both devices are setup with the same burst configuration, the parent must transmit data twice as often as its child. The most power saving network
topology has all devices within effective range of the gateway. While this is rarely possible, it’s more important to think about this before placing the gateway.
To extend battery life, the gateway should be placed more or less in the middle of a planned network. In this way, the devices acting as parents would be
equally distributed—not relying on only a few devices to route data.
Knowing all this about battery life, what can be expected? Taking all these energy saving recommendations into account and assuming the following:
• bursting one command
• having a direct communication path to the gateway
• having three child devices with the same update rate and
• using the device at 21°C.
Under these conditions the battery life could last up to
• 5 years with an update rate of 8 seconds
• 8 years with an update rate of 16 seconds and
• 10 years with an update rate of 32 seconds.
Page 17

If a faster update rate is favoured or if the device has a key position for routing within the network, ABB’s Energy Harvester option would reliably relieve the
battery.
And last—but not least—ABB’s WirelessHART transmitters use standard batteries, making them easy to procure. This will not save battery life, but will save
money.
Myth 6: WirelessHART networks require specialists to set up
A lot of engineers think that setting up a wireless network can be an arduous and annoying job. Getting everything running, ensuring safe communication and
including all desired network participants can take much time. But is this true? What do we really need to do to get a WirelessHART network running?
The wireless elements of a WirelessHART network include:
• field devices connected to the process or plant equipment. Of course, they all be WirelessHART capable.
• a gateway that enables communication between host applications and the field devices in the WirelessHART network.
• a set of network parameters: Network ID and Join Key.
That’s it. Now you can set up your network in a few steps:
Input of network parameter—To get the gateway into proper operation you must input the network parameter. This could be done easily via the integrated
web browser of the WirelessHART gateway. Most gateways provide this comfortable way of configuration. Now the network participants can join the network.
They also need the network parameters. Here’s the easiest way: order them with the desired network parameters. Otherwise you must input parameters
manually.
Since all WirelessHART devices provide a maintenance port, you can use the tools already available for wired HART devices; this avoids the need for additional
equipment. And they can be operated just like the wired HART devices. Additionally, ABB WirelessHART devices can be brought into operation just by using
their HMI. Again, you need not concern yourself with security because it’s built-in.
Update rate—All WirelessHART devices burst their measurement values. By default, all ABB WirelessHART devices burst HART command 9 every 16 seconds.
This includes the dynamic variables PV, SV, TV, QV (for devices with multiple outputs) with the status of each and the remaining battery lifetime. They burst
HART command 48 every 32 seconds—the additional device status information. So typically, you needn’t deal with the burst configuration. Nevertheless the
commands or the update rates can be changed as needed.
Placement of field devices and gateway—Start with the gateway installation first. Find a suitable place for it and power it up. As it is the connection between
host application and the WirelessHART network it will need a power supply and wired connection to the DCS. After the WirelessHART devices have been
prepared they now can be installed in the field.
Installation can be done in the same way as well-known for wired HART devices. But WirelessHART devices require less effort because they have no wires.
This is especially true in hazardous areas where nothing will cross the zones and no output device needs to be checked with its ex parameters against an input
device. After the devices are powered up they will appear in the network automatically. Everything else is handled by the gateway; a user does not need to take
care of meshing the net or which device communicates with which.
Myth 7: WirelessHART is too slow
When asked for the required speed to cover an application, a user will often answer: as fast as possible. The update rate for WirelessHART devices within a
network can be configured individually between once per second and once per hour. Is that fast enough for everything? Let’s look at a few considerations
before answering too quickly.
Usage—At first, examine the uses for which a WirelessHART network is actually intended: condition monitoring and process supervision. Remember, the
wireless sample/update rate should be:
- 3 to 4 times faster than the process time constant for condition monitoring and open loop control applications
- 4 to 10 times faster for regulatory closed loop control.
For measurements in the process industries today, more than 60% simply monitor conditions—not for control applications. So a WirelelessHART update rate
that’s greater or equal to one second may fit many of these applications. Of course other factors may apply too.
Timing—For wired devices, update rates and timing aren’t often considered. Engineers and operators assume the values in the DCS are the real time values
from the process, achieved by oversampling. In fact, signals often are converted and scaled from the initial sensor element before reaching the DCS. So in a
traditional wired installation, the measurement values also have latencies. Instrument engineers are rarely aware of these, but just assume these values are
timely enough. In the world of WirelessHART, the data packets have time stamps that spell out how old a measurement value is. This indicator lets engineers
assess latencies and properly react to them.
Thinking differently—Instrument engineers must know how fast a process value can change for both control applications and condition monitoring. No
additional knowledge is needed for WirelessHART. For wired installations, this knowledge affects a DCS or PLC. For WirelessHART, it affects the planning of the
network. Because the bandwidth is a limited resource, engineers must consider how fast the update rate needs to be rather than how fast it could be.
Comparing speeds—The traditional FSK-HART loop provides a speed of 1200 bits per second. In practice, HART on RS-485 cable is limited to 38,400 bits per
second. WirelessHART provides a speed of 250,000 bits per second. This means WirelessHART is more than 200 times faster than wired HART and even six
times faster than HART over RS-485 cable. By allocating the “Fast Pipe” to a network participant, the wireless gateway provides a high-bandwidth connection
that is four times faster than normal. This is ideal for transmitting a large amount of data, such as up- and downloading a complete configuration.
Page 18

January 2017
Institute of Water - Eastern Section - Dragon’s Den
30th
January 2017
Cranfield University , UK
Hosted by Institute of Water & Cranfield University
February 2017
Market Opening
1st
February 2017
Think Tank Museum, Birmingham
Hosted by the Sensors for Water Interest Group
8th Smart Energy Europe & the Future Utility
2nd
- 3rd
February 2017
London Park Plaza, London UK
Hosted by Oliver Kinross
March/April 2017
Smart Wastewater Networks
8th
March 2017
Merseyside Maritime Museum, Liverpool, UK
Smart Water Networks
21st
March 2017
Hilton Birmingham Metropole, Birmingham, UK
Hosted by the Faversham House Group
Smart Water Systems
24th
-25th
April 2017
London, UK
Hosted by the SMi Group
May/ June 2017
Specification & Installation of Sensors
3rd
May 2017
Principality Stadium, Cardiff, Wales
SWAN 2017
9th
-10th
May 2017
Tower Hotel, London UK
Hosted by the SWAN Forum
12th
Specialized Conference in ICA
11th
-14th
June 2017
Quebec City, Canada
Hosted by the International Water Association
September 2017
Sensing in Water 2017
27th
-28th
September 2017
Nottingham Belfry, Nottingham, UK
Page 19
Conferences, Events,
Seminars & Studies
Conferences, Seminars & Events
Market Opening Workshop
Where: Think Tank Museum, Birmingham, UK
When: 1st
February 2017
Description
From April 2017, over 1.2 million eligible businesses and other non-
household customers in England will be able to choose their supplier of water
and wastewater retail services. There is an expectation that the opening of
the non-household water market will support business customers to become
more water-efficient and will stimulate benefits for customers in the form of
lower bills and better value for money, better customer service, and more
tailored services to suit individual customers’ needs.
In this new open water market, water retailers will seek to offset low
retail margins by delivering innovative and value-adding services to
customers; services that will also differentiate them from their competitors.
Both retailers and wholesale companies will be looking to meet their
obligations to customers, to the market operator and to each other at the
lowest possible operating cost.
This workshop is aimed at water retailers, wholesalers and the industry
supply chain and will focus on the role of sensor technology, data and the
insight it delivers in enabling market reform. Early opportunities are likely to
focus on metering and meter estate management, billing, water efficiency,
surface water management, trade effluent, customer engagement and
private network management.
Smart Wastewater Networks
Where: Merseyside Maritime Museum, Liverpool
When: 8th
March 2017
The use of sensors in the Wastewater Network has been sparse and far
between. The complexity of wastewater collection has meant that this
development within the Wastewater industry has been delayed. However
with the requirement for event duration monitoring, improvements in sensor
technologies and modelling software, the industry is starting to develop
improved methods of managing the Wastewater Network.
In this SWIG Workshop on Smart Wastewater Networks we will discuss the
drivers and developments in the Wastewater Network..

Sponsored by
APRIL
2017
COPTHORNE TARA HOTEL, LONDON, UK
www.smart-water-systems.com
Register online or fax your registration to +44 (0) 870 9090 712 or call +44 (0) 870 9090 711
SPECIAL RATES AVAILABLE FOR UTILITY & PUBLIC SECTOR ORGANISATIONS | GROUP DISCOUNTS AVAILABLE
HIGHLIGHTS IN 2017:
• The hidden value of Data and Information –
innovative solutions to improve your strategies
• The water industry after the Smart Meter
Roll Outs – learn about the most recent
developments and challenges water utilities
are facing
• The Scottish concept of a Hydro Nation –
improving water economy by addressing the
value of water resources
• International data insight – an experience
report on Real-Time Demand forecast and Big
Data challenges
• Customer-focused engagement programmes
to improve satisfaction – how these
developments are changing customer service
SMi presents its 6th annual Conference on…
Smart Water
Systems
Addressing the latest Smart Water
Management issues and Data-Driven solutions
REGISTER BY 16TH DECEMBER TO SAVE £400 | REGISTER BY 31ST JANUARY TO SAVE £200 | REGISTER BY 28TH FEBRUARY TO SAVE £100
@UtilitiesSMi
#SmartWaterSystems
CHAIRMAN FOR 2017:
• Jeremy Heath, Innovation Manager, Sutton and East Surrey
Water plc
FEATURED SPEAKERS INCLUDE:
• Ali Fanshawe, Metering Strategy Manager, Thames Water
• Andy Smith, Regional Optimisation Manager, Anglian Water
• Jon Rathjen, Group Leader Water Industry Division, Scottish
Government
• Ben Earl, Water Efficiency Manager, Southern Water
• Ken Black, Optimisation Manager, Northumbrian Water
• Antonio Sanchez Zaplana, Engineer Manager, Aguas de
Alicante
• Mike Bishop, Head of Operational Control and
Development, Dwr Cymru Welsh Water
A: Customer and Stakeholder Engagement in the Digital Age:
How can new technologies and their application transform
your key relationships
08.30 – 12.30
Hosted by: Chris Wallace, Director and Founder, WallaceTransform
B: The fundamentals of Data & Information in the
Smart Water Industry
13.30 – 17.30
Hosted by: Oliver Grievson, Group Manager, Water Industry Process
Automation and Control Group
PLUS TWO INTERACTIVE HALF-DAY POST-CONFERENCE WORKSHOPS | WEDNESDAY 26TH APRIL 2017
CONFERENCE:
24TH - 25TH
WORKSHOPS: 26TH
Page 20

WIPAC Monthly - January 2017

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Mehr von Water Industry Process Automation & Control

Mehr von Water Industry Process Automation & Control (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

WIPAC Monthly - January 2017