Hydraulic Modeling: Pipe Network Analysis

Transcription

1 Utah State University All Graduate Plan B and other Reports Graduate Studies Hydraulic Modeling: Pipe Network Analysis Trevor T. Datwyler Utah State University Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Commons Recommended Citation Datwyler, Trevor T., "Hydraulic Modeling: Pipe Network Analysis" (2012). All Graduate Plan B and other Reports This Report is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Graduate Plan B and other Reports by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contact dylan.burns@usu.edu.

2 HYDRAULIC MODELING: PIPE NETWORK ANALYSIS by Trevor T. Datwyler A research report submitted in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Civil and Environmental Engineering Approved: Michael C. Johnson Major Professor Blake P. Tullis Committee Member Marvin W. Halling Committee Member UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Logan, Utah 2012

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS Report Certification 1.0 Introduction/Executive Summary 1.1 Existing System Description 1.2 Proposed & Projected Additions and Improvements to the System 2.0 Sources & Facilities 2.1 Sources 2.2 Storage Facilities 2.3 Booster Stations 2.4 Distribution System 3.0 Existing and Future Connections 3.1 Service Area 3.2 ERC Evaluation 3.3 Growth Management Alternatives 4.0 Water Demand Criteria 4.1 Indoor Water Use Demand 4.2 Outdoor Water Use Demand 4.3 Fire Flow Requirements 4.4 Other Demand 4.5 Demand versus Existing (and/or Proposed) Capacity 5.0 Methodology and Analysis 5.1 Hydraulic Model Used 5.2 Hydraulic Model Input 5.3 Field Calibration Methodology 5.4 Hydraulic Model Analysis 6.0 Analysis Results and Conclusions 6.1 Hydraulic Model Results 6.2 Comparison of Field Measurements and Model Results 6.3 Conclusion of Project Impact from Model Results 6.4 Rule Compliance Conclusion References Appendices Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Existing Peak Day Demand Pressures Existing Peak Day Demand + Fireflow Pressures Existing Peak Day Demand + Fireflow at School Pressures Existing Peak Hour Demand Pressures 10 Year Future Peak Day Demand Pressures 10 Year Future Peak Day Demand + Fireflow Pressures ii

4 Appendix G Appendix H 10 Year Future Peak Day Demand + Fireflow at School Pressures 10 Year Future Peak Hour Demand Pressures LIST OF TABLES Table 1.1: Table 2.1: Table 2.2: Table 2.3: Table 3.1: Table 5.1: Table 5.2: Table 5.3: Summary of System Capacities Water sources and associated right number Storage Facilities List of pipes by diameter and HW Coefficient used for modeling List of High Volume Water Users and their associated ERCs List of pipes by diameter and HW Coefficient used for modeling Field calibration results Test Hydrant Field calibration results Adjacent Hydrant LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1: Figure 1.2: Figure 1.3: Figure 1.4: Figure 2.1: Figure 2.2: Figure 3.1: Figure 3.2: Figure 4.1: Figure 5.1: Figure 5.2: Proposed 8 line installation on 200 East from Center St. to 100 North Proposed 8 line installation on 100 West from 550 North to 750 North Proposed 10 line installation along 300 South Booster Station, interior view Upper Tank Booster Station, exterior view Zoning map with existing distribution system Zoning map with future distribution system Fire hydrant installation Indoor demand pattern Outdoor demand pattern iii

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION / EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Water modeling is becoming an increasingly important part of hydraulic engineering. One application of hydraulic modeling is pipe network analysis. Using programmed algorithms to repeatedly solve continuity and energy equations, computer software can greatly reduce the amount of time required to analyze a closed conduit system. Such hydraulic models can become a valuable tool for cities to maintain their water systems and plan for future growth. The Utah Division of Drinking Water regulations require cities to maintain hydraulic models of their culinary water systems, and before additional connections can be made to the water system, a licensed professional engineer must model the additions to water system and determine if the additional connections can be made without negatively impacting the existing system. This is known as the Hydraulic Modeling Rule, or R in the State Administrative Code. The State of Utah has set the minimum pressure and flow requirements a culinary water system must meet. Before cities can qualify for state or federal funding to complete water system improvement projects, they must first demonstrate through a hydraulic model that they are providing the required minimum flows and pressures for all the service connections within the system, or that their improvement project will remediate any deficiencies to comply with the State s pressure and flow requirements. The purpose of this study is to analyze an existing culinary water system and determine several important items: 1. Identify any deficiencies that exist and determine what repairs should be made to ensure that the system can provide the required flow and pressure. 2. Using growth projections from the State Governor s office and the City s planning and zoning maps, estimate where and when future growth will occur. 3. Using these growth projections, analyze the water system and determine the capacity of the water source, storage, and distribution system. Once the capacity is determined, decisions can be made as to when aspects of the water system should be further developed, upsized, or replaced. The water system selected for this analysis was Millville City, a small town located in Northern Utah. A brief description of the culinary water system is given below. 1.1 Existing System Description: The existing water system is divided into an upper and lower pressure zone. These two zones are connected by a pressure reducing valve (PRV) which only allows water to flow from the upper to lower zone in the event of a large water demand such as a fire flow in the lower zone. The system is fed by three sources: the Glen Ridge Well, the Park Well, and Garr Spring. These sources are allowed to produce a total flow of 972 gpm in the summer season and 1,333 gpm in the winter season according to the approved water right applications. In addition to the three sources, there are three storage 1

6 reservoirs. The Glen Ridge Tank has a 1 million gallon (MG) capacity. The Park Tank has a 300,000 gallon capacity. The Upper Tank has a 1 MG capacity. The culinary water system consists of approximately 82,060 feet of pipe. The types of pipes installed based on city records are P.V.C., Ductile Iron, and Galvanized Steel. These pipes are shown in Figure 3.1, and listed in Table Proposed & Projected Additions and Improvements to the System: The future scenarios modeled include projected expansion of the City. These projected developments were made using the future land use map for Millville City. The majority of the additions are assumed to be residential lots. There are three main improvements needed to remediate existing deficiencies within the system. The first is a low pressure area located along Center Street from 180 East to 250 East during a fire flow condition. This deficiency is planned to be resolved by replacing 1260 of 4 pipe with 8 along Center Street, and installing 580 of 8 pipe along 200 East (future road). See Figure 1.1 for the location of this improvement. Figure 1.1: Proposed 8 line installation on 200 East from Center St. to 100 North 2

7 As seen on the previous page, Figure 1.1 shows the location of the proposed 8 line to provide better fire flow protection to the homes on the east end of Center Street. This solution for the low pressure area is preferred since the city already owns some property and has a right of way along this corridor for the future 200 East roadway. The second low pressure area is located at 700 North along Main Street. This deficiency may to be remediated by installing 1700 of 8 pipe along 100 West from 550 North to 750 North, creating a loop to in the system. See Figure 1.2 for the location of this improvement. Figure 1.2: Proposed 8 line installation on 100 West from 550 North to 750 north As seen above, Figure 1.2 shows the location of a proposed 8 line creating a loop to provide sufficient fire flow at the hydrant located at 750 North on Main Street. The final location of this pipe will be determined as development occurs in this area of Millville. The third low pressure area is located on the corner of 550 East and 300 South. This deficiency is planned to be remediated by connecting the three homes on the corner to the upper pressure zone. See Figure 1.3 for the location of this improvement. 3

8 Figure 1.3: Proposed 10 line installation along 300 South This improvement with a proposed 10 line from the upper pressure zone will eliminate the low pressure area located on the corner of 300 South and 550 East. It may also be used to pressurize a future irrigation system at the city park. Where sufficient data is available, the equivalent residential connection (ERC) or how much water an average household uses; is determined by analyzing the water use records over an extended period of time. High volume water users are removed from the data set, and an average water usage is determined in gallons per day. All connections to the water system are then referred to by the number of ERCs they represent. For example, a commercial business using a large amount of water may be said to be 4 ERCs, or use the equivalent amount of water of four average households. Based on current water use data, the total culinary water demand during a 24 hour period in the summer is 1,042,000 gallons. This is commonly referred to as a peak day demand. The springs and wells combined currently provide 1,490,400 gallons during a 24 hour peak day period. Assuming the same demands and household size for future estimates, the water system can support an additional 178 equivalent residential connections (ERCs) before reaching capacity. Continuing at a growth rate of 3.5% (Governor s Office of Planning and Budget 2008 Utah Baseline), this will take approximately 8 years to reach. The City is divided into an upper pressure zone and a lower pressure zone. The upper pressure zone has a 1 MG reservoir. The required storage based on the existing connections and 100% peak day emergency storage is 698,300 gallons. Based on existing water use records, there is capacity to support an additional 83 ERCs. Continuing at a growth rate of 3.5% this will take approximately 10 years to reach. The lower pressure zone has a 1.0 MG reservoir and a 300,000 gallon reservoir. The required storage based on the existing connections and fire flow is 1,212,000 gallons. These storage calculations assume that when there 4

9 is a fire in the lower pressure zone, the upper tank fire flow storage will be utilized since the increased demands will activate the PRV, allowing water from the upper zone to flow into the lower pressure zone. Based on existing water use records, an additional 189 ERCs can be made in the lower zone before reaching the capacity of 543 ERCs. Continuing at a growth rate of 3.5%, this will take approximately 12 years to reach. The booster station within the system currently provides approximately 600 gpm to the upper pressure zone. It typically runs 18 hours per day during peak day demand. Approximately 193 ERCs are fed by this booster pump. Based on current water use records, this pump can serve approximately 139 additional ERCs before reaching capacity. At a growth rate of 3.5%, this will take roughly 15 years. Figure 1.4: Booster Station, interior view Table 1.1: Summary of System Capacities Summary of System Capacities Item Max number of ERCs Existing Storage Future ERCs that can be served ERCs Capacity Source 725 (Entire System) Upper Zone Storage 276 (Upper Zone Only) MG Lower Zone Storage 543 (Lower Zone Only) MG Booster Pump 332 (Upper Zone Only) One item to note is the difference between the storage volume of the upper and lower zones and the number of ERC s that can be served by those reservoirs. The upper zone has 77% of the storage volume of the lower, yet it can only support 50% of the ERCs of the lower zone. This is due to the absence of irrigation or secondary water in the upper zone. This creates a large impact on the upper zone of the water system. 5

10 2.0 SOURCES AND FACILTIES 2.1 Sources: When analyzing any water system, it is critical to understand the sources supplying water to the system. Without adequate source, even the best designed water systems will fail to deliver the required flow to water users. Millville City has three sources for the culinary water system, and one source used for cemetery irrigation. The first is Garr Spring, which has four water right numbers. The second is the Glen Ridge Well and the third is the Park Well. The rights for the two wells are combined under one water right number. Skinner Spring water is leased to the cemetery district for irrigation. Table 2.1: Water sources and associated right number Source Water Right Number Garr Spring Garr Spring Garr Spring Garr Spring Park and Glenridge Wells Cache Valley Ranches Skinner Spring Dates From Oct. 1 to March 31 From Oct. 1 to March 31 From Oct. 1 to March 31 From April 1 to Sept. 30 Flow (cfs) Minimum Reliable Flow (cfs) Status Approved Approved Approved Approved Year Round 2 - Approved Year Round April 1 to Oct Ac-ft per year 15.6 Ac-ft per year - Approved 24 Ac-ft per year Diligence Claim Table 2.1 shows the peak supply during the summer months being approximately cfs, or 1.4 million gallons per day. Plus an additional 55.6 acre ft. to be used as needed. This is approximately 400,000 gallons per day more than the existing peak day demand. As Millville continues to grow, future potential sources include: Utilizing Garr Spring as shares are acquired through development Increasing capacity of the Park Well Implementing Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR). 6

11 2.2 Storage Facilities: Table 2.2: Storage Facilities The water system consists of three storage tanks as listed below: Tank Name Type of Material Diameter (ft) Depth (ft) Total Volume (gal) Glen Ridge Tank Concrete ,000,000 Park Tank Concrete ,000 Upper Tank Concrete ,000,000 Lowest level of Elevation of Tank Name equalization Outlet Elevation (ft) Overflow (ft) volume Glen Ridge Tank Park Tank Upper Tank Table 2.2 shows the storage capacity of the three reservoirs within the system. The city is currently divided into an upper and lower pressure zone. The Upper Tank feeds the upper pressure zone, and the Glen Ridge and Park Tanks feed the lower pressure zone. The upper pressure zone has an existing storage capacity of 1.0 MG. The lower pressure zone has an existing storage capacity of 1.3 MG. Figure 2.1: Upper Tank During Construction 7

12 2.3 Booster Stations: Millville City has one booster station which supplies 600 gpm to the Upper Zone. This booster pump is fed by the Park Tank and the lower pressure zone sources including Garr Spring, the Park Well and Glen Ridge Well. Figure 2.2: Booster Station, exterior view 2.4 Distribution System: The Millville City Water System consists of the following distribution pipes: Table 2.3: List of pipes by diameter and HW Coefficient used for modeling Diameter (in) Type Length (ft) HW Coefficient Used for Modeling 1.5 Galvanized Steel Galvanized Steel P.V.C Ductile Iron 8, Ductile Iron 22, Ductile Iron 25, P.V.C 1, Ductile Iron 16, P.V.C 1, Ductile Iron 4, P.V.C 1, Total 82,060 See Figure 3.1 for the location and diameter of these pipes. 8

13 3.0 EXISTING AND FUTURE CONNECTIONS 3.1 Service Area The current water system serves approximately 700 acres with 547 connections within the Millville City boundaries (See Figure 3.1 for a view of the city zoning and existing service area). Most of these connections are to residential lots. There are some small businesses within Millville including auto body, and manufacturing. At the projected growth rate of 3.5%, it is estimated that in 40 years, the number of connections will rise to 2,212. As new developments or growth come to Millville, the hydraulic model will be updated and output observed to ensure that water delivery requirements are met according to State Rules. The development or new connection(s) will not be approved until such time that required parameters are met for the situation. 9

14 10

15 11

16 Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show the existing and future distribution systems with the current zoning map. 3.2 ERC Evaluation: Where sufficient data is available, the equivalent residential connection (ERC) or how much water an average household uses; is determined by analyzing the water use records over an extended period of time. High volume water users are removed from the data set, and an average water usage is determined in gallons per day. All connections to the water system are then referred to by the number of ERCs they represent. For example, a commercial business using a large amount of water may be said to be 4 ERCs, or use the equivalent amount of water of four average households. The Millville City Water System currently serves 547 connections. Of those 547 connections, 265 irrigate with culinary water. Of the existing connections, there are only a few high volume water users. They account for 19.9 of the ERCs. The low volume water users such as the post office were conservatively assumed to require a full ERC. Table 3.1 shows a list of customers and their associated ERCs. The total number of ERCs served by the water system is 561. Table 3.1: List of High Volume Water Users and their associated ERCs Name ERCs Elementary School 1.45 LDS Church 7.74 Silicone Plastics 1.37 Residential Connection 3.27 Residential Connection 3.17 Residential Connection 2.94 The future scenario was also analyzed to estimate the number of ERCs that will likely be added to the city, and the estimated times at which the connections will occur. Presently, there are approximately 75 residential lots that the city has committed to serve, but have not yet physically connected to the infrastructure. These connections are assumed to each be one ERC. In the more distant future, a 40 year period was analyzed to assess the impacts future connections will have on the existing water system. With an annual growth rate of 3.5%, the total number of connections in 40 years would be 2,212. The demands for future growth areas were calculated using R , assuming a density of 3 connections per acre. 12

17 3.3 Growth Management Alternatives: As development occurs in Millville, extensions of system distribution lines are required to be installed by the developer. These lines are required to be installed to Millville City Standards. Developers are also required to bring water rights or shares to the City per ordinance. This allows for sustainability of water into the future. Where impacts from development are found in the water system, impact fees are collected by the City to improve storage, source and distribution lines to meet the requirements of the City and R

18 4.0 WATER DEMAND CRITERIA 4.1 Indoor Water Use Demand: Water audit records from 2003 to 2009 were used to determine the water consumption for Millville. The records indicate that the peak summer day indoor water use is approximately 160 gpd per capita. This compares with 220 gpd per capita using calculations from R309. With an average of 3.6 people per residential connection, an indoor demand of 160 x 3.6 = 576 gpd or 0.4 gpm. A factor of two was applied to the peak day demand to arrive at a peak instantaneous demand of 0.8 gpm. The peak instantaneous demand is used to size the distribution system. Indoor demand was simulated in the model in groups of users. These groups are in a geographically similar location with common water usage. These groups are called demand regions. All of the water demand from the users in the group are added together and used to represent demand on the water system from the demand region. 4.2 Outdoor Water Use Demand: The water audit records indicate that Millville residents use 532 gpd per capita of culinary water for irrigation use. With an average of 3.6 people per residential connection, an outdoor peak day demand is 532 x 3.6 = gpd or 1.33 gpm per ERC. An average lot size of 1/3 acre per ERC was assumed for the water model. This results in a peak day irrigation demand of 4 gpm/acre. In comparison R309 calculations show a peak day demand of 3.96 gpm per irrigated acre for zone 4 on the Irrigated Crop Consumptive Use Zones and Normal Annual Effective Precipitation map for Utah as prepared by the Soil Conservation Service. This map is available through the Utah Division of Drinking Water. The peak instantaneous demand was then determined by applying a factor of two to the peak day demand. The result is a peak instantaneous demand of 2.66 gpm per ERC. The same demand regions used for indoor demand are also used for outdoor demand. Again, the outdoor demand for the demand region is summed and applied together for each region to be used in the model. 14

19 4.3 Fire Flow Requirements: Fire flows were applied to the water system under the direction of the local fire authority (Cardell Nielsen (435) , 40 N 100 W Hyrum, UT), and in accordance with the International Fire Code and R-309. Fire hydrants exist within the Millville Water System and the majority were tested at 1000 gpm in the hydraulic model, noting the residual pressures. Figure 4.1: Fire hydrant installation Some structures in Millville required a higher fire flow based upon current codes. The largest of these structures was Millville Elementary. Based on the construction type and square footage of the structure, the required flow for this building applied to the model is 4,250 gpm for a duration of 4 hours. 4.4 Other Demand: There are no significant industrial or other types of water users in Millville City at this time. However, if a significant user were to develop in the community, the demands would be input into the water model for evaluation and impact on the water system. 4.5 Demand Versus Existing and/or Proposed Capacities The requirements in R were used to compare demands and capacities with regard to the source, storage, and distribution system. Based on current water use data, the total culinary water demand during a 24 hour period is 1,042,000 gallons. The springs and wells combined currently provide 1,490,400 gallons during a 24 hour peak day period. Assuming the same demands and household size for future estimates, the water system can 15

20 support an additional 178 ERCs before reaching capacity. At a growth rate of 3.5%, this will take approximately 8 years to reach. The City is divided into an upper pressure zone and a lower pressure zone. The upper pressure zone has a 1 MG reservoir. The required storage based on the existing connections and 100% peak day emergency storage is 698,300 gallons. Based on existing water use records, There is capacity to support an additional 231 ERCs. Continuing at a growth rate of 3.5% this will take approximately 10 years to reach. The lower pressure zone has a 1.0 MG reservoir and a 300,000 gallon reservoir. The required storage based on the existing connections and fire flow is 1,212,000 gallons. These storage calculations assume that when there is a fire in the lower pressure zone, the upper tank fire flow storage will be utilized since the increased demands will activate the PRV, allowing water from the upper zone to flow into the lower pressure zone. Based on existing water use records, an additional 189 ERCs can be made in the lower zone before reaching the capacity of 543 ERCs. Continuing at a growth rate of 3.5%, this will take approximately 12 years to reach. The booster station within the system currently provides approximately 600 gpm to the upper pressure zone. It typically runs 18 hours per day during peak day demand. Approximately 193 ERCs are fed by this booster pump. Based on current water use records, this pump can serve approximately 139 additional ERCs before reaching capacity. At a growth rate of 3.5%, this will take roughly 15 years. The distribution system was tested for minimum pressure requirements as defined in R under a peak instantaneous demand. The results of these tests are explained in section 5.4 of the report. 16

21 5.0 METHODOLOGY AND ANALYSIS 5.1 Hydraulic Model Used: When creating a hydraulic model of a pressurized pipe network, a decision has to be made regarding the complexity of the model needed. When the system being modeled does not have a combination of pressure boosting station and pressure reducing valves, an instantaneous model is developed. This consists of a snapshot of the demands on a model in a static scenario. Due to the significant fire suppression demand created by the Millville Elementary School, an extended period simulation is deemed necessary to assess the impact the demand will have on the distribution system as well as the storage facilities. This extended period model was created using computer software known as InfoWATER (MWHSoft). InfoWATER uses programmed algorithms to repeatedly solve the continuity and energy equations to determine the flow and residual pressures at specific nodes in the pipe network. The Hazen-Williams equation is used to calculate the friction losses in the pipes. Typical time patterns (Figures 5.1 and 5.2) were applied to the indoor and outdoor demands on the system to simulate the fluctuations in demand commonly seen on culinary water systems. This simulation was run over a one week period in order to allow the model to stabilize and show routine operation. The significant fire flow demand created by the elementary school was applied over a four hour period, with peak day demands applied on the rest of the system. 5.2 Hydraulic Model Input: Using the 2006 HRO aerial images from the Utah GIS Portal, connections were identified visually. Then using the water audit records, average daily demands were calculated and applied to the identified connections. Using the water system as built plans from the city, pipes were drawn into the model with their associated diameters and friction coefficients. A list of the pipe lengths by diameter is shown below: 17

22 Table 5.1: List of pipes by diameter and HW Coefficient used for modeling Diameter (in) Type Length (ft) HW Coefficient Used for Modeling 1.5 Galvanized Steel Galvanized Steel P.V.C Ductile Iron 8, Ductile Iron 22, Ductile Iron 25, P.V.C 1, Ductile Iron 16, P.V.C 1, Ductile Iron 4, P.V.C 1, Total 82,060 Table 5.1 shows the different pipe sizes with their associated lengths and material types, as well as the Hazen Williams Coefficient used for the model. Demand regions were added to the model with a demand node in each region. Elevations for the demand regions in the model were obtained from a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) file from the Utah GIS Portal. Elevations for the tanks and PRV were determined from surveyed measurements. For the existing scenarios, the number of ERCs within the demand regions were summed and applied to their respective regions. For the future scenarios, the demands were calculated by determining the projected growth within the next ten years and estimating where this development is most likely to occur. These additional ERCs were then evenly distributed over their respective areas. The build out scenario was also modeled using future land use planning maps. Since build out for the City is far into the future, a brief review of the system needs was made. A detailed description of the scenarios modeled is included in section Field Calibration Methodology: Field calibration was performed by flowing six fire hydrants within the city. The selected test hydrants were first tested for static pressure. The static pressure is then taken on an adjacent hydrant. The test hydrant is then opened to full flow and the residual pressure is observed on the adjacent hydrant. A pitot gauge is used to measure the pressure in the flowing hydrant to calculate the flow. These flows are then applied to their corresponding locations in the model and the static and residual pressures are compared to ensure that the model is calibrated to what actually happens in the field. The calibration results are shown below in Tables 5.2 and

23 Table 5.2: Field calibration results - Test Hydrant Measured Static Pressure Measured Residual Pressure Model Residual Pressure* Test # Date Time Description of test hydrant Model Static Pressure* Δ Δ 1 6/22/ : N. 350 E /22/ : N. Main /22/ : E. 100 N /22/ :30 Center 180 E /22/ : N. 100 W /22/ : W. 200 S Table 5.3: Field calibration results - Adjacent Hydrant Measured Static Pressure Model Static Pressure* Measured Residual Pressure Model Residual Pressure* Test # Description of adjacent hydrant Δ Δ N. 350 E N. Main E. 100 N Center 100 E N. Main W. 200 S *Model was calibrated in a steady state (constant demand) condition. Tables 5.2 and 5.3 show how well the computer model compares with what actually occurs in the field. The static pressure columns show the pressure at the corresponding hydrants before the hydrants are opened. The residual pressure columns show the pressure at the hydrants while the test hydrant is open. The test hydrant is the hydrant that is actually opened, and the adjacent hydrant is a hydrant usually a block away where the pressures are observed before and during the flow test. The Δ column shows the difference between the computer model and the field test results. With the exception of test number 6, all the model calibrations compared fairly well with what was seen in the field. This outlier could be caused by an erroneous elevation at that location from the DEM file, or an unseen demand occurring on the system near the location of the test hydrant at the time the test was performed. 5.4 Hydraulic Model Analysis: Since the water distribution system supplies water for indoor as well as outdoor use, an extended period simulation was used to account for these two different demands. The time patterns used over a 24 hour period are shown below. The peak of the demand pattern shown as 100% corresponds to the peak instantaneous demand on the system. Time zero in the pattern corresponds to midnight. 19

24 Percent of Peak Day Demand Percent of Peak Day Demand Figure 5.1: Indoor demand pattern Indoor Demand Pattern 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Time (hr) Figure 5.1 shows the peak indoor demands on the system occurring at 7-8:00 a.m. with another spike corresponding to 6:00 p.m. These peak times simulate the demands created by people getting ready, showering etc. in the morning, and preparing dinner, bathing children etc. in the evening. Figure 5.2: Outdoor demand pattern Outdoor Demand Pattern 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Time (hr) Figure 5.2 shows the peak outdoor demands on the system occurring at 6-7:00 a.m., with another spike occurring at 9:00 p.m. These peak times simulate the actual demands created by people watering their lawns in the evening and early morning. Millville City does not currently have real time flow measuring devices, so the time series curves represented above are estimates based on the demands typically seen on culinary water systems. 20

25 Both the indoor and outdoor demands were applied simultaneously over a 24 hour period. This pattern repeats itself over a 7 day period to give the model time to stabilize and observe the overall effects of the peak demands on the water system. The State of Utah requires the hydraulic model be analyzed under various scenarios to mimic the different lengths and intensities of demands placed on the water system. For each scenario, there are minimum pressure requirements to be met. A hydraulic analysis was performed for eight different scenarios, described below: 1. Existing Peak Day Demand: A peaking factor of 2.0 was applied to the average day demand, then these demands were applied to the existing water system model. Any problem areas where the pressure dropped below 40 psi were noted. 2. Existing Peak Day Demand + Fire Flow: A peaking factor of 2.0 was applied to the average day demand, then these demands were applied to the existing water system. At the same time, a fire flow of 1000 gpm was applied at the critical junctions throughout the system (one at a time). The residual pressures were noted, flagging any problem areas where the pressure dropped below 20 psi. 3. Existing Peak Day Demand + Fire Flow at School: A peaking factor of 2.0 was applied to the average day demand, then these demands were applied to the existing water system. At the same time, a fire flow of 4,250 gpm was applied at the Millville Elementary School for a duration of 4 hours. The residual pressures were noted, flagging any problem areas where the pressure dropped below 20 psi. 4. Existing Peak Instantaneous Demand: A peaking factor of 2.0 was applied to the peak day demand to arrive at the peak instantaneous demand. These demands were then applied to the existing water system. The pressures were noted, flagging any problem areas where the pressure dropped below 30 psi. 5. Future Peak Day Demand: A peaking factor of 2.0 was applied to the average future day demand, then these demands were applied to the future water system models. Any problem areas where the pressure dropped below 40 psi were noted. 6. Future Peak Day Demand + Fire Flow: A peaking factor of 2.0 was applied to the average day demand, then these demands were applied to the future water system. At the same time, a fire flow of 1000 gpm was applied at the critical junctions throughout the future system (one at a time). The residual pressures were noted, flagging any problem areas where the pressure dropped below 20 psi. 21

26 7. Future Peak Day Demand + Fire Flow at School: A peaking factor of 2.0 was applied to the average day demand, then these demands were applied to the future water system. At the same time, a fire flow of 4,250 gpm was applied at the Millville Elementary School for a duration of 4 hours. The residual pressures were noted, flagging any problem areas where the pressure dropped below 20 psi. 8. Future Peak Instantaneous Demand: A peaking factor of 2.0 was applied to the peak day demand to arrive at the peak instantaneous demand. These demands were then applied to the future water system model. The pressures were noted, flagging any problem areas where the pressure dropped below 30 psi. 22

27 6.0 ANALYSIS RESULTS & CONCLUSION 6.1 Hydraulic Model Results: A list of the results for the eight scenarios modeled is included below. 1. Existing Peak Day Demand: The only concern under this scenario is the area on the corner of 300 S and 550 E. The pressure drops to 25 psi. This problem will be remediated in the future by connecting this line to the upper pressure zone and installing a pressure reducing valve. At that time, the pressures under this scenario will all meet the 40 psi minimum. See Figure 1.3 for the location of this planned improvement. 2. Existing Peak Day Demand + Fire Flow: There are two main improvements needed to remediate existing deficiencies. The first is a low pressure area located along Center Street from 180 East to 250 East. This deficiency is planned to be resolved by replacing 670 of 4 pipe with 8 along center street, and installing 780 of 8 pipe along 200 East (future road) creating a loop in the system. The second low pressure area is located at 700 North along Main Street. This deficiency may be remediated by installing 1700 of 8 pipe along 100 West from 550 North to 750 North, creating a loop to in the system. See Figures 1.1 and 1.2 for the locations of these planned improvements. 3. Existing Peak Day Demand + Fire Flow at School: There are no problems meeting the existing peak day demand and fire flow at the school (4250 gpm for 4 hours). 4. Existing Peak Instantaneous Demand: The same problem under the existing peak day demand exists under this scenario. The future improvements mentioned above will resolve this deficiency as well. 5. Future Peak Day Demand: There are no problems meeting the peak day demand in the 10 year future or the build out scenarios once the above mentioned improvements are made. 6. Future Peak Day Demand + Fire Flow: There are no problems meeting the peak day demand + fire flow in the future ten year or build out scenarios once the above mentioned improvements are made. 7. Future (10 Year) Peak Day Demand + Fire Flow at School: There are no problems meeting the peak day demand gpm fire flow at the school in the 10 year future scenario once the above mentioned improvements are made. A build out scenario was not modeled for peak day demand + fire flow at the school since the probability is very 23

28 low that the same school building will still be in operation at the time the city reaches build out capacity. 8. Future Peak Instantaneous Demand: There are no problems meeting the peak instantaneous demand in the 10 year future and build out scenarios once the above mentioned improvements are made. 6.2 Comparison of Field Measurements and Model Results: Once the existing model was calibrated, it was analyzed with the help of the system operator Gary Larsen to ensure that the model accurately portrayed what was occurring in the water system. See Tables 5.2 and 5.3 for a comparison of the results. 6.3 Conclusion of Project Impact from Model Results: By following the list of proposed projects listed in this plan, the City will be able to service their citizens with adequate pressure and flow of water. Future developments will be evaluated for effects using this model so the system can maintain its high level of operation. 6.4 Rule Compliance Conclusion With the designed improvements, all existing and new water users will be provided the quantity of water at pressures compliant with State rules (R Administration: General Requirements of Public Water Systems Minimum Water Pressure), in Millville City. 24

29 References "Utah Administrative Code." Utah Administrative Code. Web. 13 Sept < Bennett, John F. "2008 Utah Baseline." Envision Utah. Utah.gov, Web. 12 Sept Nielsen, Cardell. Personal Interview. June 2, 2011 Soil Conservation Service. "Utah: DEQ: DDW: Irrigation Zone Map." Map. Utah: DEQ: DDW: Irrigation Zone Map. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct <

30 NODE Appendix A Existing Peak Day Demand Pressures ELEVATION INDOOR DMD OUTDOOR DMD MIN_PRESS Comments Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection To be resolved by connecting to high pressure line To be resolved by connecting to high pressure line Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection

31

32

33

34

35 ID Appendix B Existing Peak Day Demand + Fireflow Pressures Total Demand (gpm) Critical Node 1 ID Critical Node 1 Pressure (psi) Critical Node 1 Head (ft) Adjusted Fire- Flow (gpm) Available Flow at Hydrant (gpm) Notes: 60 1, ,535-22, No Hydrant here 44 1, ,834-6, No Hydrant here 88 1, ,399 1, No Hydrant here 50 1, , No Hydrant here 18 1, , No Hydrant here 20 1, , No Hydrant here 52 1, , No Hydrant here J262 1,000 J , Future line to north will resolve 12 1, , No Hydrant here 10 1, , No Hydrant here 14 1, , No Hydrant here 240 1, , No Hydrant here 16 1, , ,001 No Hydrant here 124 1, , No Hydrant here J146 1,000 J , No Hydrant here 194 1,003 J , No Hydrant here J96 1,001 J , , , , ,000 J ,779 1,126 1, , ,782 1,419 1, , ,782 1,656 2, , ,782 1,637 1,612 J48 1, ,782 1,654 1, , ,783 1, , ,783 1,799 4,032 J188 1, ,783 2,019 1, , ,783 2,004 4, , ,783 2,004 2,292 J12 1, ,783 2,123-5, , ,783 2,391 3, , ,783 2,449 4,205 J252 1, ,783 2,737 4,540 J138 1, ,783 3,022 5, , ,783 3,179 4, , ,783 3,226 6,106

36 120 1, ,783 3,227 5,736 J72 1, ,783 3,265 5,557 J78 1, ,783 3,265 4,749 J70 1, ,783 3,302 4,954 J74 1, ,783 3,302 4, , ,783 3,346 1,822 J76 1, ,783 3,332 3,700 J68 1, ,783 3,334 5,453 J94 1, ,783 3,401 3, , ,783 3,444 3, , ,783 3,421 6, , ,783 3,444 6, , ,783 3,625 6, , ,783 3,834 6, , ,783 3,880 6, , ,783 3,892 4, , ,783 3,961 5, , ,783 3,980 2, , ,783 4,103 6, , ,783 3,404-14, , ,783 4,197 3, , ,783 4,238 1, , ,783 4,242 1, , ,783 4,270 2, , ,783 4,288 1, , ,783 4,278 6, , ,783 4,286 4, , ,783 4,327 6,637 J264 1, ,783 4,359 1,213 J152 1, ,783 4,363 1, , ,783 4,359 4,319 J174 1, ,783 4,359 2,865 J182 1, ,783 4,359 1, , ,783 4,409 6, , ,783 4,443 6, , ,783 4,516 4, , ,783 4,726 1, , ,783 4,724 2, , ,783 4,757 4, , ,783 4,779 5, , ,783 4,813 7,082

37 58 1, ,783 4,846 7, , ,783 5,502 3, , ,783 5,704 8, , ,783 5,626 8, , ,783 5,620 7, , ,783 5,968 4, , ,783 6,357 2, , ,783 6,403 2, , ,783 7,002 2, , ,783 7,017 7, , ,783 6,413 7, , ,783 8,076 6, , ,783 6,743 2, , ,783 6,985 5,717 J52 1, ,783 7,027 5, , ,783 7,241 4, , ,783 7,302 1, , ,783 7,300 3,700 J178 1, ,783 7,308 1, , ,783 7,310 3, , ,783 10,225 3, , ,783 7,418 4,876 J180 1, ,783 7,539 3,449 J86 1, ,783 7,745 4,059 J42 1, ,783 7,747 3, , ,783 7,906 4, , ,783 7,916 3, , ,783 8,010 4, , ,783 13,561 6,090 J54 1, ,783 2,422 J60 1, ,783 2,554 J62 1, ,783 2,678 J84 1, ,783 2, , ,783 3, , ,783 2,773 J58 1, ,783 2,632 J40 1, ,783 2,597 J38 1, ,783 2, , ,783 1, , ,783 2,875 J32 1, ,783 2,780

38 144 1, ,783 2,955 J26 1, ,783 2, , ,783 3, , ,783 2,903 J156 1, ,783 2,444 J158 1, ,783 2, , ,783 2,576 J154 1, ,783 2,463 J140 1, ,783 5, , ,783 2,901 J16 1, ,783 3, , ,783 2, , ,783 2,987 J18 1, ,783 3, , ,783 3, , ,783 3, , ,783 3,127 J20 1, ,783 2,878 J22 1, ,783 3,611 J24 1, ,783 3, , ,783 3,081 J10 1, ,783 3, , ,783 2, , ,783 2,456 J28 1, ,783 2,590 J30 1, ,783 3, , ,783 2,711 J36 1, ,783 3, , ,783 2, , ,783 2, , ,783 2,290 J44 1, ,783 2, , ,783 2, , ,783 3, , ,783 5,334 J56 1, ,783 2, , ,783 8, , ,783 2, , ,783 3,137 J64 1, ,783 2,740 J66 1, ,783 2,811

39 140 1, ,783 1, , ,783 2, , ,783 3, , ,783 2, , ,783 3, , ,783 2,625 J80 1, ,783 2,461 J82 1, ,783 2, , ,783 3, , ,783 2,871 J90 1, ,783 2,710 J92 1, ,783 2, , ,783 2, , ,783 3,107 J98 1, ,783 4,188

40 Appendix C Existing Peak Day Demand + Fireflow at School Pressures NODE ELEVATION INDOOR DMD FIREFLOW DMD MIN_PRESS Notes Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection Not a service connection Node at School

41