Seven hundred kilometres out.
Then eight hundred up.
Follow one litre from the sea to the top of the tower and you cross every discipline I have worked in. It is one route, and the drawing below carries the whole of it: seven hundred kilometres of carrier in profile on the left, the tower in elevation on the right, sharing a grade line.
Scroll to travel. The marker moves along the profile to the site, then turns and climbs the tower. The instrument reads the same litre of water throughout — the units change at the join, because the problem does.
Distance is the load case out here.
On the carrier, every problem is a function of how far the water has to go. Friction takes 405 metres over seven hundred kilometres and the profile takes another 645, so no single station can deliver it. The grade becomes a sawtooth of seven stations and 50 MW, each one worked backwards from the suction head the next one needs — and the profile is also what decides where the air collects, where the pressure has to be broken, and where a pump trip will tear the column apart.
Above ground it is the same water and a different question entirely. That is the whole argument for keeping both halves of this work on one site: they are not two specialisms, they are the same litre at two scales.
Seven hundred kilometres costs what
the last eight hundred metres costs.
Seven hundred kilometres of carrier delivers into the site at 655 m against a site level of 640 — fifteen metres of head, 1.47 bar. Enough for a garden tap. The tower then lifts the same litre another 828 metres, in seven pressure zones. Set the two bills side by side:
Seven stations, 645 m of lift and 405 m of friction, 50 MW installed — an entire national scheme.
Seven boosted zones inside one building — within a tenth of what the whole 700 km carrier costs.
That parity is the reason this site has to show both. A national carrier crossing seven hundred kilometres of desert and a single tower standing 828 metres tall spend almost the same energy on the same litre — and they are designed by different disciplines, on different drawings, to different codes. I have spent twenty-two years on both sides of that join.
One practice, two drawings.
Everything on this site sits somewhere on that route. Forty-one articles belong to the left-hand drawing, thirty-eight to the right, and the ones that matter most sit at the join — where a transmission engineer hands a litre of water to a building engineer at one and a half bar and walks away.
Along the main
Surge and transients, pipeline design, pump engineering, desalination, networks and leakage.
38 articlesUp the tower
Pressure zoning, HVAC and cooling, plumbing and drainage, fire protection, tall-building systems.
Proposal: this replaces the homepage opening. Both drawings are on screen from the first scroll, so the site says water and buildings at the same time rather than one after the other. The archive, the topic grid and the course sit below it, unchanged.
The check that runs before
anything leaves the office.
Engineering Workspace reads your contract, specifications, drawings and years of correspondence, then checks what you are about to issue against them — and keeps the record that protects you when the answer is slow. Registers, drawing studios, sign-off chains and a claims ledger around one project record, on hardware you own.
I wrote it inside the delivery of a live mega-project, and it has been used every working day since. The figures below are measurements from that project, not marketing.
Eighty-six articles, filed by subject.
The route above is the argument. This is the library behind it.
One Tower
Every model on this site, coupled to one building. Change the height and watch the pressure zones, mechanical floors, cooling plant and water balance move together.
Collected editionThe Megatall MEP Handbook
Twenty-nine chapters on tall-building services as one printable volume — eight hours of reading, 86 worked models, in the order it should be read.
Technical Writing
On a 12 km DN800 ductile iron main, cutting the wave speed from 1,050 to 700 m/s drops the Joukowsky head from 149.1 to 99.4 m and the unprotected peak from 165–190 m to 140–150 m, yet the air-over-water vessel needed to hold +3.0 m barely moves: 3.08 to 3.19 m³ of gas from 700 to 1,300 m/s. Only flexible pipe changes that, with 1.99 m³ at 450 m/s and no vessel at 300 m/s. Wave speed still sets the Joukowsky head, the 2L/a clock and whether the column separates. Covers Korteweg by material and restraint, free air, cavity-model ranges and a HAMMER procedure, with four interactive charts.
On a 12 km DN800 main with a 20 m³ vessel carrying 3.5 m³ of gas, a K 2 outflow / K 10 inflow connection in place of a free one cuts the maximum from 127.5 m to 119.2 m while the minimum moves only from +4.5 m to +4.3 m; a symmetric K 25 orifice sends the line to −4.5 m. The pipe between a surge vessel and the main is a design element, not a fitting: flow the connection holds back becomes downsurge, and the water flowing back into the vessel is the energy that makes the upsurge. Six connections compared, the orifice plate sized from the Idelchik formula, the HAMMER set-up and three interactive charts.
The gas duty is the same whichever vessel you buy: 3.08 m³ at the steady HGL, expanding to 15.30 m³ on a pump trip. An air-over-water vessel delivers it in a 19.1 m³ shell. A bladder or diaphragm vessel needs 23.2–28.4 m³ at any pre-charge from atmospheric up to 0.95 of the minimum pressure, because its shell is set by isothermal charging. That pre-charge is under 0.29 bar gauge, invisible in service and moving with temperature. Air-over-water has its own narrow margin: on the 20 m³ reference vessel used across the site, the design gas setting sits only 0.28 m³ above the loss of +3.0 m. With compressor sizing, a weighted selection matrix, the HAMMER set-up and five interactive charts.