Q: In rapid sand filter design, high-quality filter sand (quartzite) should have minimal acid solubility. The percentage loss in weight after 24 hours in hydrochloric acid should not exceed:

Introduction / Context: Filter media quality directly influences the performance and longevity of rapid gravity filters in water treatment. Chemical durability is assessed via acid solubility; excessive dissolution implies weaker grains that can break down, create fines, and compromise filtration and backwashing. Given Data / Assumptions: Media: quartzite filter sand for rapid sand filters. Test: immersion in hydrochloric acid (HCl) for 24 hours. Criterion: maximum allowable percentage loss in weight. Concept / Approach: A chemically durable filter medium resists dissolution. Standard water-works specifications typically limit acid solubility to a small percentage, ensuring long-term integrity, minimal fines production, and low headloss growth. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate typical specification limits for acid solubility of quartzite.Best practice thresholds generally cap loss at or below 5% for high-grade media.Therefore, acceptable maximum loss after 24 hours in HCl is 5%. Verification / Alternative check: Specifications from water utilities and standard texts align with the 5% criterion for first-grade media, with less stringent grades allowing slightly higher loss but not preferred for critical installations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 8%, 10%, 12%, 15%: These are too lenient and risk inferior media that deteriorate during service, leading to higher turbidity breakthrough and operational issues. Common Pitfalls: Confusing acid solubility limits with uniformity coefficient or effective size specifications; assuming all “silica sands” behave identically without quality testing. Final Answer: 5%

Q: Which of the following is the main disadvantage associated with hard water in domestic and industrial use?

Introduction / Context: Hard water contains elevated concentrations of calcium and magnesium ions. While not a direct health hazard, hardness creates multiple operational and domestic problems that increase costs and reduce equipment life and performance. Given Data / Assumptions: Hardness primarily due to Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ salts. Applications include bathing, laundry, cooking, and industrial heating systems. Concept / Approach: Hardness interferes with soap (forming scum), precipitates scale in heated systems, and can promote corrosion-incrustation cycles. These issues collectively degrade efficiency, increase energy use, and impact user experience. Step-by-Step Solution: Soap consumption rises because Ca²⁺/Mg²⁺ form insoluble salts with fatty acids.Scaling in boilers reduces heat transfer, causing higher fuel consumption and risk of overheating.In pipes, deposits reduce cross-sectional area and may accelerate localized corrosion.Cooking in hard water can toughen certain foods and affect taste and texture. Verification / Alternative check: Industrial water treatment programs (softening/conditioning) are standard precisely to prevent these problems, confirming their practical significance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each of options a–d individually states valid disadvantages; since all are true, the most complete choice is the combination, i.e., option e. Common Pitfalls: Confusing temporary and permanent hardness; assuming hardness is only a “soap” problem while ignoring energy penalties from scale. Final Answer: All of the above

Q: Hydrologic plots and their interpretation: Which statements about hydrographs and mass curves are correct?

Introduction / Context: Hydrographs and mass curves are foundational tools in surface hydrology for analyzing stream response to rainfall, designing reservoirs, and determining storage requirements. Understanding what each plot represents is essential for correct design and operations. Given Data / Assumptions: Hydrograph: time on x-axis, discharge on y-axis. Mass curve: cumulative volume on y-axis, time on x-axis. Steady datum and consistent units throughout plotting. Concept / Approach: A hydrograph shows how discharge varies with time, capturing rising limbs, peaks, and recession. A mass curve integrates the hydrograph over time, so its slope equals instantaneous discharge; since accumulated volume cannot decrease (neglecting losses in the plotted record), the curve is non-decreasing. Step-by-Step Solution: Hydrograph definition → discharge vs time: statement true.Mass curve definition → accumulated volume vs time: curve rises monotonically: statement true.Derivative (slope) of mass curve = discharge: statement true. Verification / Alternative check: Integration-differentiation relationship: hydrograph is the time-derivative of the mass curve, reinforcing the slope interpretation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “None of the above” contradicts standard hydrologic definitions widely used in design manuals. Common Pitfalls: Mixing cumulative rainfall with cumulative flow; misreading mass curves during periods of variable inflow and outflow when analyzing reservoirs (must include outflow and losses for storage calculations). Final Answer: All of the above

Q: For a thin-walled metal pipe under internal pressure, if d is the inside diameter, p the internal pressure, f the permissible hoop tensile stress, and n the joint efficiency, what is the required wall thickness t?

Introduction / Context: Design of thin-walled pressure pipes uses circumferential (hoop) stress formulas to ensure the shell thickness resists bursting due to internal pressure. Joint efficiency reduces the usable strength when longitudinal seams or joints are present. Given Data / Assumptions: Thin cylinder assumption: wall thickness t ≪ diameter d. Internal pressure p (uniform). Allowable hoop stress f (permissible tensile stress). Joint efficiency n (0 < n ≤ 1). Concept / Approach: For a thin cylinder, hoop stress sigma_h satisfies sigma_h = (p * d) / (2 * t). Accounting for joint efficiency n, the effective allowable stress becomes f * n. Solve for t to meet sigma_h ≤ f * n. Step-by-Step Solution: sigma_h = (p * d) / (2 * t)Set sigma_h ≤ f * n → (p * d) / (2 * t) ≤ f * nRearrange → t ≥ (p * d) / (2 * f * n)Select t = (p * d) / (2 * f * n) with appropriate corrosion allowance added in practice. Verification / Alternative check: Longitudinal stress formula gives a smaller stress for thin cylinders; hoop stress governs thickness selection for most pipes under internal pressure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options b, c, d misplace factors 2 or n or invert terms, producing non-physical dependencies (e.g., thickness decreasing with pressure). Common Pitfalls: Forgetting to include joint efficiency; neglecting corrosion allowance; applying thin-cylinder formula to thick-walled pipes where Lame’s equations are required. Final Answer: t = (p * d) / (2 * f * n)

Question 1

Open-well pumping test – identify the incorrect statement about depression head and yield While determining the yield of open wells by a pumping test, which one of the following statements is NOT correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Open-well hydraulics considers the relationship between drawdown (depression head), inflow velocity through the well periphery, and safe yield. Excessive drawdown can mobilize sand and cause structural or operational problems. Given Data / Assumptions: Unlined or partially lined open wells in pervious strata. Steady pumping during the test. Critical depression head corresponds to the onset of sand entry (critical approach velocity). Concept / Approach: As depression head increases, inflow velocity rises. Beyond a limiting value, sand begins to move, rendering the condition unsafe. Therefore, the recommended working head is a fraction (commonly about one-third) of the critical depression head to avoid sand movement and maintain sustainable yield. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) True: larger drawdown → higher hydraulic gradient → higher approach velocity.(b) True by definition of the critical state.(c) True: conservative working head ≈ one-third of critical is widely advised.(d) False: operating at the critical depression head risks sand entry; maximum safe yield is obtained below this limit, not at it. Verification / Alternative check: Design manuals stipulate safe operating heads well below the critical value to prevent turbidity and structural damage, validating (d) as the incorrect statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a)–(c) are consistent with standard open-well practice; (e) cannot be correct since one incorrect statement exists. Common Pitfalls: Over-pumping to chase short-term yield; ignoring sand content monitoring; failing to re-evaluate working head as seasonal water levels change. Final Answer: Maximum safe yield of an open well is expected at the critical depression head

Question 2

Water-demand variations – typical design value for maximum hourly consumption In municipal water-supply design, the 'maximum hourly' consumption is commonly taken as what percentage of the average hourly consumption?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Demand factors account for peaking behavior within a day or year. Designers adopt empirical multipliers to size transmission mains, service reservoirs, and pumps to cope with short-duration peak loads. Given Data / Assumptions: Typical urban distribution without extreme industrial fluctuations. Average daily demand known; average hourly is daily average divided by 24. Standard peaking factors used in preliminary design. Concept / Approach: A common rule-of-thumb is that maximum hourly consumption is about 1.5 times the average hourly consumption (150%). This recognizes diurnal peaks in morning/evening. More refined designs further consider 'maximum day' factors and 'peak hour on peak day' factors, but for many exam and planning contexts, 150% is the accepted figure. Step-by-Step Solution: Let q_avg,h be average hourly consumption.Assume peak-hour factor = 1.5 → q_max,h ≈ 1.5 * q_avg,h.Convert to percent: 150%. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical peaking factors in numerous manuals give similar magnitudes; when combined with storage, systems can satisfy peaks without oversizing all conveyance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 110–140% underestimate peak demands in many communities. Common Pitfalls: Using a single factor universally; always refine with local consumption patterns, metering data, and seasonal variations. Final Answer: 150%

Question 3

Terminology – elevated open channel on trestles A water channel constructed above ground level and supported on bents or trestles is generally called what?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In hydraulic conveyance, different structures are used to traverse varied terrain. When an open-channel section must be carried above the ground on a lightweight support system, a specific term is used for that arrangement. Given Data / Assumptions: Open-channel flow conditions (free surface). Support on bents/trestles rather than massive bridge piers. Typical materials include timber, steel, or light reinforced concrete. Concept / Approach: A flume is an above-ground trough or channel, commonly rectangular or trapezoidal, supported on trestles. It carries water across uneven ground without the mass of a full aqueduct. An aqueduct is a broader term often denoting a larger, bridge-like structure carrying a canal or pipeline across a valley. A canal is generally ground-supported, and a tunnel is a closed, underground conduit. Step-by-Step Solution: Match the definition: open channel on trestles → flume.Other terms describe different structural contexts. Verification / Alternative check: Historic irrigation and mining conveyances used timber flumes extensively; modern flow-measurement devices (e.g., Parshall flumes) echo the term for constrained open-channel sections. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Canal: typically at or below grade. Aqueduct: larger bridge-like carrier, not a lightweight trestle-supported trough. Tunnel: underground enclosed passage. 'All the above' mixes mutually exclusive terms. Common Pitfalls: Using 'aqueduct' for any elevated waterway; in exam terminology, 'flume' is the precise term for the trestle-supported open channel. Final Answer: Flume

Question 4

In hydrology, the peak discharge by the rational method is often expressed in terms of rainfall intensity, runoff coefficient, and catchment area. If rainfall intensity I is given in cm/hour, the runoff percentage is P (i.e., C = P/100), and the dra…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Design runoff for small urban catchments is commonly estimated by the rational method. The discharge Q depends on rainfall intensity I, runoff coefficient C, and area A. Correct unit handling is crucial because I may be provided in cm/hour or mm/hour, and A may be provided in km². This problem tests your ability to convert units and write the proper discharge formula in m³/s. Given Data / Assumptions: I is rainfall intensity in cm/hour. P is percentage runoff, so C = P/100 (dimensionless). A is the catchment area in km². We seek Q in m³/s. Concept / Approach: The rational formula for discharge is Q = 0.278 * C * I_mm_per_hr * A_km2 when intensity is in mm/hour. If intensity is instead in cm/hour, we convert cm to mm or directly adjust the coefficient. Since 1 cm = 10 mm, I_mm_per_hr = 10 * I_cm_per_hr. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with Q = 0.278 * C * I_mm_per_hr * AReplace C by P/100 and I_mm_per_hr by (10 * I_cm_per_hr)Q = 0.278 * (P/100) * (10 * I) * AQ = 0.278 * 0.1 * P * I * AQ = 0.0278 * P * I * A Verification / Alternative check: A quick dimensional check: 0.278 works for mm/hour. Since 1 cm/hour equals 10 mm/hour, the coefficient must be divided by 10 to keep units consistent. Hence 0.0278 is correct for cm/hour. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Q = 0.278 * P * I * A: This wrongly treats I (cm/hour) as mm/hour. Q = 2.78 * P * I * A: Off by a factor of 100; unit conversion error. Q = 27.8 * P * I * A: Off by a factor of 1000; severe unit error. Q = 0.00278 * P * I * A: Off by a factor of 10 in the opposite direction. Common Pitfalls: Mixing cm/hour and mm/hour in the rational formula; forgetting that A must be in km² for the 0.278 family of coefficients; using P directly as C without dividing by 100. Final Answer: Q = 0.0278 * P * I * A

Question 5

In buried water mains design, the surface traffic load transmitted to a pipe at depth is typically evaluated using which foundation stress solution?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Design of buried pipelines must account for superimposed loads from surface traffic. Estimating how a surface wheel load distributes as vertical stress at pipe crown depth is a classical soil mechanics problem of stress distribution in a semi-infinite medium. Given Data / Assumptions: Elastic, homogeneous, isotropic half-space assumption for soil (idealized). Concentrated or distributed load applied at the ground surface. Need vertical stress at pipe crown depth. Concept / Approach: Boussinesq developed closed-form solutions for stresses at any point in an elastic half-space due to surface point loads, line loads, or uniformly distributed loads. These are the standard basis for estimating vertical stress increase at a given depth above a pipe crown. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Idealize wheel load → point load or equivalent distributed area load.2) Use Boussinesq influence factors for vertical stress sigma_z at depth z directly below the load.3) Superimpose contributions of multiple wheels/areas.4) Compare resulting stress with allowable soil/pipe capacity (including bedding factor). Verification / Alternative check: For layered soils, methods such as Newmark charts or numerical analyses (elastic layer theory) can be used, but Boussinesq remains the classical starting point for preliminary design. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Rankine: for lateral earth pressure on retaining walls, not vertical stress distribution to a buried pipe. Darcy–Weisbach: headloss in pipe flow, unrelated to soil stress. Lacey: canal design, regime theory for alluvial channels, not buried pipes. Westergaard: commonly for slabs on elastic foundations; not standard for deep half-space vertical stress. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring depth and load spread, misusing highway contact areas, or mixing elastic-half-space assumptions with plastic soil behavior without safety factors. Final Answer: Boussinesq’s formula for vertical stress in an elastic half-space

Question 6

According to Stokes’ law, what is the terminal settling velocity V (in still water at temperature T°C) for a small spherical particle of diameter d and specific gravity G?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In water and wastewater engineering and sediment transport, estimating the settling velocity of fine, spherical particles is fundamental. Stokes’ law applies for laminar settling (very small Reynolds numbers), linking velocity with particle size, density contrast, gravity, and fluid viscosity. Given Data / Assumptions: Particle: small, spherical with diameter d. Specific gravity of particle: G (relative to water). Fluid: water at T°C (kinematic viscosity ν depends on temperature). Laminar regime: particle Reynolds number is small (Re <~ 1). Concept / Approach: Stokes’ law balances gravitational force minus buoyancy with viscous drag for a small sphere settling at terminal velocity V. The final expression explicitly shows the quadratic dependence on particle diameter and inverse dependence on viscosity. Step-by-Step Solution: Gravitational-buoyancy force ∝ (G - 1) * d^3Viscous drag force ∝ μ * d * V (μ = dynamic viscosity)At terminal velocity: driving force = dragV ∝ (G - 1) * d^2 / μUsing μ = ρ * ν and ρ_water normalization, the practical form becomesV = g * (G - 1) * d^2 / (18 * ν) Verification / Alternative check: Dimensional analysis confirms V has dimensions of length/time. Also, increasing temperature lowers ν, increasing V, which matches observation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: d or d^3 dependence is wrong for Stokes regime; the correct dependence is d^2. Inverting the expression (option d) gives units and trends inconsistent with physics. Common Pitfalls: Using Stokes’ law beyond laminar range; ignoring flocculation; using dynamic instead of kinematic viscosity without proper conversion; neglecting temperature dependence of ν. Final Answer: V = g * (G - 1) * d^2 / (18 * ν)

Question 7

In rapid sand filter design, high-quality filter sand (quartzite) should have minimal acid solubility. The percentage loss in weight after 24 hours in hydrochloric acid should not exceed:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Filter media quality directly influences the performance and longevity of rapid gravity filters in water treatment. Chemical durability is assessed via acid solubility; excessive dissolution implies weaker grains that can break down, create fines, and compromise filtration and backwashing. Given Data / Assumptions: Media: quartzite filter sand for rapid sand filters. Test: immersion in hydrochloric acid (HCl) for 24 hours. Criterion: maximum allowable percentage loss in weight. Concept / Approach: A chemically durable filter medium resists dissolution. Standard water-works specifications typically limit acid solubility to a small percentage, ensuring long-term integrity, minimal fines production, and low headloss growth. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate typical specification limits for acid solubility of quartzite.Best practice thresholds generally cap loss at or below 5% for high-grade media.Therefore, acceptable maximum loss after 24 hours in HCl is 5%. Verification / Alternative check: Specifications from water utilities and standard texts align with the 5% criterion for first-grade media, with less stringent grades allowing slightly higher loss but not preferred for critical installations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 8%, 10%, 12%, 15%: These are too lenient and risk inferior media that deteriorate during service, leading to higher turbidity breakthrough and operational issues. Common Pitfalls: Confusing acid solubility limits with uniformity coefficient or effective size specifications; assuming all “silica sands” behave identically without quality testing. Final Answer: 5%

Question 8

Which of the following is the main disadvantage associated with hard water in domestic and industrial use?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Hard water contains elevated concentrations of calcium and magnesium ions. While not a direct health hazard, hardness creates multiple operational and domestic problems that increase costs and reduce equipment life and performance. Given Data / Assumptions: Hardness primarily due to Ca²⁺ and Mg²⁺ salts. Applications include bathing, laundry, cooking, and industrial heating systems. Concept / Approach: Hardness interferes with soap (forming scum), precipitates scale in heated systems, and can promote corrosion-incrustation cycles. These issues collectively degrade efficiency, increase energy use, and impact user experience. Step-by-Step Solution: Soap consumption rises because Ca²⁺/Mg²⁺ form insoluble salts with fatty acids.Scaling in boilers reduces heat transfer, causing higher fuel consumption and risk of overheating.In pipes, deposits reduce cross-sectional area and may accelerate localized corrosion.Cooking in hard water can toughen certain foods and affect taste and texture. Verification / Alternative check: Industrial water treatment programs (softening/conditioning) are standard precisely to prevent these problems, confirming their practical significance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each of options a–d individually states valid disadvantages; since all are true, the most complete choice is the combination, i.e., option e. Common Pitfalls: Confusing temporary and permanent hardness; assuming hardness is only a “soap” problem while ignoring energy penalties from scale. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 9

Hydrologic plots and their interpretation: Which statements about hydrographs and mass curves are correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Hydrographs and mass curves are foundational tools in surface hydrology for analyzing stream response to rainfall, designing reservoirs, and determining storage requirements. Understanding what each plot represents is essential for correct design and operations. Given Data / Assumptions: Hydrograph: time on x-axis, discharge on y-axis. Mass curve: cumulative volume on y-axis, time on x-axis. Steady datum and consistent units throughout plotting. Concept / Approach: A hydrograph shows how discharge varies with time, capturing rising limbs, peaks, and recession. A mass curve integrates the hydrograph over time, so its slope equals instantaneous discharge; since accumulated volume cannot decrease (neglecting losses in the plotted record), the curve is non-decreasing. Step-by-Step Solution: Hydrograph definition → discharge vs time: statement true.Mass curve definition → accumulated volume vs time: curve rises monotonically: statement true.Derivative (slope) of mass curve = discharge: statement true. Verification / Alternative check: Integration-differentiation relationship: hydrograph is the time-derivative of the mass curve, reinforcing the slope interpretation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “None of the above” contradicts standard hydrologic definitions widely used in design manuals. Common Pitfalls: Mixing cumulative rainfall with cumulative flow; misreading mass curves during periods of variable inflow and outflow when analyzing reservoirs (must include outflow and losses for storage calculations). Final Answer: All of the above

Question 10

For a thin-walled metal pipe under internal pressure, if d is the inside diameter, p the internal pressure, f the permissible hoop tensile stress, and n the joint efficiency, what is the required wall thickness t?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Design of thin-walled pressure pipes uses circumferential (hoop) stress formulas to ensure the shell thickness resists bursting due to internal pressure. Joint efficiency reduces the usable strength when longitudinal seams or joints are present. Given Data / Assumptions: Thin cylinder assumption: wall thickness t ≪ diameter d. Internal pressure p (uniform). Allowable hoop stress f (permissible tensile stress). Joint efficiency n (0 < n ≤ 1). Concept / Approach: For a thin cylinder, hoop stress sigma_h satisfies sigma_h = (p * d) / (2 * t). Accounting for joint efficiency n, the effective allowable stress becomes f * n. Solve for t to meet sigma_h ≤ f * n. Step-by-Step Solution: sigma_h = (p * d) / (2 * t)Set sigma_h ≤ f * n → (p * d) / (2 * t) ≤ f * nRearrange → t ≥ (p * d) / (2 * f * n)Select t = (p * d) / (2 * f * n) with appropriate corrosion allowance added in practice. Verification / Alternative check: Longitudinal stress formula gives a smaller stress for thin cylinders; hoop stress governs thickness selection for most pipes under internal pressure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options b, c, d misplace factors 2 or n or invert terms, producing non-physical dependencies (e.g., thickness decreasing with pressure). Common Pitfalls: Forgetting to include joint efficiency; neglecting corrosion allowance; applying thin-cylinder formula to thick-walled pipes where Lame’s equations are required. Final Answer: t = (p * d) / (2 * f * n)

Question 11

Rainfall statistics and indices: choose the correct set of statements.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Hydrometeorological terminology must be used precisely. This question checks understanding of daily/annual rainfall definitions, the concept of a climatic normal period, and the index of wetness used to compare a year’s rainfall with the long-term normal. Given Data / Assumptions: (a) Daily rainfall = amount in any 24-hour day. (b) Annual rainfall = total rainfall in a calendar (or hydrologic) year. (c) Rain cycle period in India is 35 years (proposed statement). (d) Index of wetness = actual annual rainfall / normal annual rainfall. Concept / Approach: World Meteorological Organization (WMO) climatic normals are taken over 30-year periods. In Indian practice, the “normal” commonly uses a 30-year base period (e.g., 1901–1930, 1931–1960, etc.). Statements about 35 years are not standard and are generally incorrect in this context. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate (a): correct by definition.Evaluate (b): correct by definition.Evaluate (c): incorrect—normals are over 30 years, not 35.Evaluate (d): correct definition of index of wetness (dimensionless ratio). Verification / Alternative check: National meteorological agencies publish normals based on 30-year periods; hydrology texts echo this standard convention. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “a and b only” ignores (d) which is correct. “a, b, c, and d” wrongly includes (c). “b and d only” omits (a), which is correct. “c only” accepts the incorrect 35-year claim. Common Pitfalls: Confusing local data archive lengths with the official normal period; mixing hydrologic year with calendar year without clarity; forgetting the ratio form of the index of wetness. Final Answer: a, b, and d only are correct

Question 12

For a pumping main carrying discharge Q = 0.16 m³/s, what is the economic (optimum) diameter of the pipe, using the common empirical relation for minimum total annual cost?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Economic (optimum) diameter minimizes the sum of annual pumping (energy) cost and annualized capital cost of the pipeline. Empirical formulae derived from typical cost structures and headloss laws (e.g., Hazen–Williams or Darcy–Weisbach) give convenient quick estimates for preliminary design. Given Data / Assumptions: Discharge Q = 0.16 m³/s. Economic diameter relation of the form D_e ≈ k * Q^(3/5) (k depends on cost and headloss law assumptions). Seeking a reasonable standard answer consistent with widely used design charts. Concept / Approach: For many design guides, D_e scales approximately with Q^(3/5). With typical coefficients used in civil engineering exam problems, Q = 0.16 m³/s yields an economic diameter close to 0.49 m (≈ 49 cm). Step-by-Step Solution: Assume D_e ≈ k * Q^(3/5)For standard k in exam practice, D_e for Q = 0.16 m³/s calculates near 0.49 mRounded to typical commercial pipe sizes, 0.488 m (≈ 48.8 cm) is selected Verification / Alternative check: Trial energy–capital cost analysis around 450–500 mm diameters would show a shallow minimum in total annual cost near ~0.49 m for typical pumping durations and pipe materials—consistent with the empirical rule. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 4.88 cm and 4.88 m are unrealistic for this discharge and would be far from economical. 48.8 cm is numerically the same as 0.488 m; both indicate the same correct choice (option a is the SI form). “None of these” is incorrect because a correct numerical option is provided. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the exponent (3/5) or mixing up units; forgetting that economic diameter is an approximate preliminary design choice that must be refined with detailed cost and headloss calculations. Final Answer: 0.488 m

Question 13

At a socket-and-spigot joint used for pressure pipes, which of the following statements are correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Socket-and-spigot joints are traditional means of joining cast iron and similar pressure pipes. Proper terminology and sealing practices are important to achieve durable watertight connections in water supply systems. Given Data / Assumptions: Pipe joint type: socket (bell) and spigot (plain) end. Sealing material: historically lead and yarn; modern equivalents include elastomeric gaskets. Application: pressurized water conveyance. Concept / Approach: Understanding joint geometry and assembly steps clarifies how axial tolerance and angular deflection are accommodated while maintaining watertightness. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify parts: enlarged bell = socket; plain end = spigot.Assembly: insert spigot into socket with packing/gasket.Sealing: traditionally molten lead poured and caulked to seal; modern joints often use rubber rings. Verification / Alternative check: Field manuals and manufacturer data sheets consistently use the same terminology and describe similar installation steps for these joint types. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each of a–d states a true aspect of the socket-and-spigot joint; hence the comprehensive correct choice is “All of the above”. Common Pitfalls: Confusing bell-and-spigot with flanged joints; overlooking modern gasketed push-on joints which no longer use molten lead but embody the same geometric terminology. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 14

Design of plain sedimentation tanks (water treatment): What is the typical surface overflow rate (also called surface loading rate) used for plain sedimentation units?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In water treatment plant design, the surface overflow rate (SOR) or surface loading rate is a primary sizing parameter for plain sedimentation tanks. It represents the volumetric flow per unit plan area and controls the settling environment for suspended particles prior to filtration. Given Data / Assumptions: Plain sedimentation (no tube settlers, no high-rate coagulation clarifiers). Conventional design practice in SI units. Steady average design flow conditions. Concept / Approach: SOR is chosen so that the effective settling velocity of target particles is less than or equal to the overflow rate. For conventional plain sedimentation, many handbooks recommend daily surface loadings of roughly 24 to 30 m/day. Converting to hourly units gives about 1,000 to 1,250 litres/hr/m^2 for typical designs, providing a practical balance between tank size and clarified water quality. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume a representative conventional SOR ≈ 24–30 m/day.Convert m/day to litres/hr/m^2: 24 m/day ≈ 1,000 L/hr/m^2; 30 m/day ≈ 1,250 L/hr/m^2.Select the range that matches these values in the options. Verification / Alternative check: Cross-check with design texts: plain sedimentation (without enhanced settlers) typically lies near 20–30 m/day; plants operating at the higher end require good coagulation–flocculation control to maintain effluent quality. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 250–1,000 L/hr/m^2: These are low for plain sedimentation and would oversize tanks. >1,250 L/hr/m^2: Generally too high for plain settling without high-rate applications. Common Pitfalls: Confusing high-rate clarifier loadings with plain sedimentation values. Ignoring seasonal temperature (viscosity) impacts; colder water can warrant conservative SOR. Final Answer: 1,000 to 1,250 litres/hr/m^2.

Question 15

Check (non-return) valves in water systems: Where should they be installed to prevent reverse flow and cross-contamination?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Check valves (non-return valves) are one-way devices that stop reverse flow. They are vital for protecting pumps and safeguarding potable networks from backflow that could introduce contamination. Given Data / Assumptions: Pumping systems discharge to pressurized mains. Potential interconnections exist between safe (potable) and compromised (polluted or process) lines. Objective is to prevent reverse flow and back-siphonage. Concept / Approach: On pump delivery lines, a check valve prevents the pumped column from returning through the pump during shutdown, protecting equipment and avoiding water hammer effects. At interconnections, check/backflow prevention assemblies stop contaminated water from flowing into the potable system due to pressure drops or siphonage. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify reverse-flow risks: pump shut-off and system pressure fluctuations.Install check valves immediately downstream of pumps to hold delivery head.Provide appropriate backflow prevention (e.g., double check, RPZ) at cross-connections to potable lines. Verification / Alternative check: Codes and best practices require backflow prevention for cross-connections and recommend check valves on pump discharge to avoid reversal and surges. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only suction side: does not protect against reverse flow from the main. Neither location: ignores basic hydraulic safety. Common Pitfalls: Placing the check valve too far from the pump, increasing column reversal and surge. Using incorrect type (swing vs. spring) without considering headloss and response time. Final Answer: Both (a) and (b).

Question 16

Drought declaration threshold: An area is officially considered drought-affected when its mean rainfall falls below what percentage of normal (long-term average)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Administrations and hydrologists use rainfall deficiency thresholds to identify drought conditions and trigger mitigation, relief, and water-use restrictions. A common benchmark compares seasonal or annual rainfall to the long-term mean (“normal”). Given Data / Assumptions: Mean rainfall is expressed as a percentage of the long-term normal. We are considering a widely used indicative threshold for drought declaration. Concept / Approach: A deficiency greater than about one-quarter relative to normal indicates severe hydrologic stress for agriculture and supplies. Hence, rainfall less than roughly three-quarters (75%) of normal is a conventional signal for drought status in many planning references and exam standards. Step-by-Step Solution: Define rainfall deficiency D% = 100% − (actual/normal * 100%).If actual < 75% of normal ⇒ D% > 25% ⇒ qualifies as drought condition by common criterion.Select the closest policy threshold in the choices: 75%. Verification / Alternative check: Historic agricultural advisories and hydrology texts commonly adopt 75% of normal as the drought-affected indicator, with further categories for moderate vs. severe drought using deeper deficits or additional indicators (soil moisture, streamflow). Why Other Options Are Wrong: 50% or 60%: These imply extreme deficits; policies usually act earlier. 80% or 85%: These may flag watch conditions but are not the conventional drought declaration threshold in many references. Common Pitfalls: Using percentage of a short recent mean rather than a long-term climatology. Ignoring timing; distribution in growing season matters as much as totals. Final Answer: 75%.

Question 17

Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) standard test: Over how many days at 20°C is the standard BOD measured for wastewater characterization?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: BOD quantifies the oxygen consumed by microorganisms while oxidizing biodegradable organics in wastewater. The standard BOD test is foundational for sewage treatment design, regulatory compliance, and stream impact assessment. Given Data / Assumptions: Incubation temperature 20°C. Dark conditions, absence of nitrification (or inhibition used). Standard dilution water and seeding where required. Concept / Approach: The “standard” BOD, commonly referred to as BOD5, measures oxygen demand over a 5-day incubation at 20°C. Historically, 5 days approximated the time a river in temperate climates required to carry wastes to the sea, making it a practical compromise between accuracy and test duration. Step-by-Step Solution: Prepare dilutions and seed as needed to keep residual DO measurable.Measure initial DO (D1) and final DO (D2) after 5 days at 20°C.Compute BOD5 = (D1 − D2 − oxygen uptake by seed) * dilution factor. Verification / Alternative check: Standards (e.g., APHA, IS) recognize BOD5 at 20°C as the reference measure; ultimate BOD (BODu) can be inferred via kinetics but is not the standard regulatory test. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1–4 days: Underestimate stabilized oxygen demand in most wastewaters. Common Pitfalls: Nitrification during the test artificially increases BOD unless inhibited. Poor dilution selection can drive DO to zero, invalidating results. Final Answer: 5 days.

Question 18

Defining ‘‘good’’ potable water quality: Which combination best represents acceptability for human consumption?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Potable water must meet microbiological and physicochemical standards to protect public health and ensure consumer acceptability. The listed attributes are routine indicators of aesthetic and sanitary quality at the treatment-plant outlet and at consumer taps. Given Data / Assumptions: Treated municipal water supply. Compliance with typical standards for turbidity, colour, taste/odour, and microbiology. Concept / Approach: Safe drinking water should be aesthetically pleasing and pathogen-free. Absence of suspended matter and colour implies adequate clarification; lack of pathogens indicates effective disinfection and barrier integrity; neutral taste/odour suggests no residual contamination, algae, or excessive disinfectant by-products. Step-by-Step Solution: Ensure turbidity control (coagulation, sedimentation, filtration).Confirm disinfection performance (e.g., CT values for chlorine/ozone/UV).Monitor aesthetic parameters (taste, odour, colour) within guideline ranges. Verification / Alternative check: Routine compliance monitoring (coliform absence, turbidity < threshold, colour units low, taste/odour complaints minimal) verifies “good” water quality. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single attribute alone is insufficient; comprehensive quality demands all listed features together. Common Pitfalls: Assuming colourless water is necessarily safe; microbiological safety is paramount. Ignoring distribution-system regrowth or intrusion after treatment. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 19

Pressurized pipelines and water hammer: Identify the correct statements about internal pressure, hydraulic gradient, and surge (water-hammer) effects.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Understanding pressure relationships in pipelines is essential for safe design. Internal pressure arises from static head and dynamic effects; the hydraulic gradient line (HGL) visualizes energy grade, and operational transients like rapid valve closure cause water hammer that can exceed design pressures if unmanaged. Given Data / Assumptions: Closed conduits running full under steady or transient conditions. Incompressible liquid approximation for steady analysis; finite wave speed for surge. HGL and energy grade line are well-defined. Concept / Approach: For full pipes, piezometric head at a point is the vertical distance from the HGL to the point. At rest, pressure equals static head. Transients (e.g., sudden closure) induce pressure waves that add to static pressure—water hammer—requiring surge mitigation (air vessels, surge tanks, slow-closing valves). Step-by-Step Solution: Relate pressure p to head h: p = γ * h.On HGL, head equals elevation of water surface in an attached piezometer.Recognize that rapid velocity change ΔV generates surge Δp ≈ ρ * a * ΔV (a = wave speed). Verification / Alternative check: Pipe-surge textbooks confirm that static head plus surge governs maximum internal pressure, and HGL provides the geometric visualization of pressure distribution. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual statement is correct; selecting fewer than all leaves out essential aspects of pipeline hydraulics. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring elevation of pipe center when interpreting HGL. Underestimating water hammer when using quick-acting valves or long rising mains. Final Answer: All the above.

Question 20

Mechanisms of water purification during filtration: Which process is primarily responsible for contaminant removal within filter beds?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Filtration in water treatment removes turbidity and pathogens by several simultaneous mechanisms. Different filter types emphasize different mechanisms (rapid vs. slow sand, dual-media, membrane pretreatment), but in granular media filters, multiple processes act together to achieve high effluent quality. Given Data / Assumptions: Granular media filtration following effective coagulation–flocculation (for rapid filters) or ripened biological layer (for slow sand). Appropriate loading rates and backwashing (for rapid filters) or scraping/cleaning (for slow sand). Concept / Approach: Key mechanisms include: (a) mechanical straining (size exclusion in pore throats), (b) flocculation/interception and in-bed sedimentation as particles collide and attach, (c) biological metabolism in slow sand filters where a schmutzdecke layer deactivates pathogens, and (d) electrostatic/adsorptive interactions that bind colloids to grain surfaces. No single mechanism alone explains performance across filter types and operating conditions. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize rapid filters rely on prior coagulation to enlarge particles for effective capture.Acknowledge slow sand filters rely heavily on biological action for pathogen removal.Include physicochemical attachment (electrostatic/van der Waals) as contributors to capture. Verification / Alternative check: Pilot studies and filter effluent particle counting demonstrate cumulative removal mechanisms; if coagulation fails, rapid filter removal efficiency drops sharply, underlining the multi-mechanism nature. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual mechanism occurs; limiting to one ignores the integrated nature of granular filtration. Common Pitfalls: Assuming filtration is only straining; in practice, attachment and biology can dominate. Overlooking filter ripening and the need for correct backwash regime. Final Answer: All the above.

Water Supply Engineering Questions