Comparative Operation and Maintenance Cost Study of Shaft Over the RCC ESR in Rural Water Supply Scheme

Abstract

Reinforced Cement Concrete (RCC) Elevated Service Reservoirs (ESRs) are widely utilized in rural water supply systems for water storage and distribution. However, their implementation in rural areas presents various challenges, including high initial costs, extended construction durations, difficulties in maintenance and repairs, concerns regarding structural stability, issues with land acquisition, water leakage, and susceptibility to natural disasters. The primary objective of this study is to examine the challenges encountered in operating rural water supply schemes, explore the use of shafts as an alternative to RCC ESRs in such schemes, conduct a cost analysis comparing shafts and RCC ESRs, and evaluate their performance and lifecycle through case studies. Therefore, the aim of this study is to reduce the overall cost of water supply projects, shorten the project completion time, and minimize future operational and maintenance expenses.

Introduction

1. Objective

The study compares two water distribution systems—RCC Elevated Storage Reservoir (ESR) and hydraulic Shaft structures—to determine the more cost-effective, efficient, and sustainable method for fulfilling projected water demands in Limla village over the next 30 years.

2. System Descriptions

A. RCC ESR

• A Reinforced Cement Concrete tank elevated at 12m.

• Uses gravity for water distribution.

• Existing capacity: 30,000 liters.

• Proposed additional capacity: 46,000 liters.

B. Shaft

• Functions similarly to a Break Pressure Tank (BPT).

• Acts as a hydraulic isolator, reducing pressure, static head, and operational stress.

• Improves system performance and energy efficiency.

3. Literature Insights

• Shafts reduce water hammer, operational costs, and improve hydraulic separation.

• Indian WSS (Water Supply Schemes) often face issues due to poor design, unskilled labor, and management inefficiencies.

• Innovations like shafts, multi-outlet tanks, and manifolds can significantly improve service delivery.

4. Methodology & Data

• Population Projections (2025–2055) used to estimate daily water demand using three standard methods.

• Projected Daily Demand rises from 132,235 L (2025) to 183,750 L (2055).

• Water Source: Existing percolation well (130,000 L) + proposed new well (150,000 L).

• Proposed water distribution includes a duplicate 5 HP pump set for redundancy.

5. Design & Pumping Details

• Static Head: 44.39 m

• Frictional Losses: 3.5 m

• Total Pumping Head: 50.89 m

• Power Requirement: 5 HP pumps

• Distribution time: ~3–4.5 hours/day over the years

6. Cost Analysis

A. Shaft System

• Installation Cost: ?295,887 (Pumps + Shaft)

• Annual O&M Cost (Avg): ~?26,000/year

• Total Over 25 Years: ?449,050 (approx.)

B. RCC ESR System

• Installation Cost: ?1,579,938 (Pumps + ESR)

• Annual O&M Cost (Avg): ~?26,000/year

• Total Over 25 Years: ?1,733,238

7. Key Findings

• Cost Saving: Shaft system is ?1,284,051 cheaper than RCC ESR.

• O&M Cost Reduction: ~74.08% with Shaft over RCC ESR.

• Feasibility: Shaft is preferable where land is unavailable or limited.

Conclusion

The study done over here is related to comparative study for use of SHAFT over the RCC ESR in Rural water supply scheme. The observations and remark shows that the maintenance cost of Shaft/BPT over the RCC ESR will be reduced upto (74.08 %). The use of RCC ESR or SHAFT will be used as per site condition, soil bearing capacity of soil, availability of skilled labors, pipe type will be used, budget etc.

References

[1] A. Ghorpade, A. kumar Sinha, and P. Kalbar,“Energy reduction with application of shaft in water supply systems,”2021. [2] P. F. Boulos, B. W. Karney, D. J. Wood, and S. Lingireddy, “Hydraulic transient guidelines for protecting water distribution systems,” Journal-American Water Works Association, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 111–124, 2005. [3] P. Kalbar and P. Gokhale, “Decentralized infrastructure approach for successful water supply systems in india: use of multi-outlet tanks, shafts and manifolds,”Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology—AQUA, vol. 68, no. 4, pp. 295–301, 2019. [4] P. P. Kalbar, P. N. Gokhale, A. K. Ghorpade, and A. K. Sinha,“Low cost interventions for improving water supply systems in india,”Journal of Indian Water Works Association,vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 174–181, 2021.

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Mr. Rahul D. Shinde, Mr. Vinayak N. Giram. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.