Chapter 7 Hydraulic Model Updates - Modesto, CA

7-1 City of Modesto

September 2017 Water Master Plan o\c\418\02-14-36\wp\mp\100814_7Ch7

CHAPTER 7

Hydraulic Model Updates (Contiguous Service Area)

The City currently has a hydraulic model developed to simulate its contiguous water system

performance. As part of this WMP, the City’s existing contiguous water system hydraulic model

was updated to accurately reflect existing water system conditions. This Chapter describes the

updates, calibration, and verification of the City’s existing contiguous water system hydraulic

model. The resulting updated hydraulic model was subsequently used to evaluate the adequacy

of both the existing and future contiguous water systems (Chapter 8 and 9 respectively).

The hydraulic model updates, calibration, and verification efforts are described below in the

following sections:

• Current Hydraulic Model Description

• Recommended Model and GIS Mapping Protocols

• Hydraulic Model Update Methodology

• Hydraulic Model Updates

• Hydraulic Model Calibration (Steady-State)

• Hydraulic Model Validation (Extended Period Simulation)

7.1 CURRENT HYDRAULIC MODEL DESCRIPTION

The City’s current hydraulic model of its existing contiguous water system was developed in

20031 by West Yost. Additional updates to the City’s hydraulic model were completed in 2007

as part of the 2010 Engineer’s Report2, which captured improvements to the contiguous water

system up to about 2006. In 2010, the contiguous system hydraulic model was converted from

Innovyze’s H2OMap® software to the InfoWater® software and provided to the City. Since

2010, City staff has been updating the hydraulic model on an “as-needed” basis, typically as part

of specific hydraulic modeling investigations by City staff.

As part of the development of this WMP, a comprehensive hydraulic model update was

undertaken to incorporate new or changed pipeline facilities that were constructed since about

2006. The model is currently not an all-pipe model, and generally does not include pipelines that

are 4-inches in diameter or less (though some small diameter pipelines were included for model

refinement). These updates will improve the model and make it more representative of the City’s

existing contiguous water system by adding new distribution, transmission, and looping pipelines

not previously included in the model.

1 City of Modesto Hydraulic Model Development, Calibration and Verification, West Yost, August 23, 2003.

2 City of Modesto 2010 Water System’s Engineer’s Report, Appendix A, West Yost, October 5, 2009.

Chapter 7 Hydraulic Model Updates (Contiguous Service Area)

7-2 City of Modesto


In addition to these pipeline updates, new water system facilities (i.e., new wells and Tier 2

improvements) were incorporated and demands in the hydraulic model were re-allocated based

on existing (2013) water demands using spatially-located water meter and flat account data.

Once the existing contiguous water system hydraulic model was updated, additional work was

performed to calibrate and verify its capability of representing the current network. These tasks

are discussed in more detail below.

7.2 RECOMMENDED MODEL AND GIS MAPPING PROTOCOLS

As part of the overall update the hydraulic model, West Yost collaborated with City staff to

develop recommended model and GIS protocols that will allow the City, as it moves forward, to

develop an all-pipe model that has a one-to-one relationship with the City’s water system GIS

pipeline data. The overall goal of the model and GIS protocols is to streamline hydraulic model

updates so that the hydraulic model could be updated efficiently and regularly to reflect newly

installed/modified water system pipelines and facility conditions.

West Yost prepared a Technical Memorandum (TM) summarizing the recommended model and

GIS mapping protocols on November 13, 2014 (see Appendix J).

7.3 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATE METHODOLOGY

To update the existing contiguous water system hydraulic model, West Yost performed the

following tasks:

• Developed hydraulic model management and documentation protocols and GIS and

hydraulic model linkages in an effort to maintain an up-to-date hydraulic model;

• Updated existing pipelines and added new pipelines;

• Updated existing and added new water system facilities (e.g., storage reservoirs,

pressure regulating stations (control valves), wells and pump stations);

• Allocated existing water demands using the City’s spatially-located meter and flat

account information; and

• Calibrated and verified that the hydraulic model system configuration is generally

representative of the City’s current water system based on system pressures, flows,

and tank elevations observed in the field and from the SCADA system.

To accomplish these tasks, West Yost worked closely with City Engineering and Operations staff

to obtain and review the following:

• Information on existing storage tanks, booster pump stations, wells, pressure

regulating stations, and other water supply facilities;

• Drawings associated with recent water system improvements from the City’s

As-Built Vaults (the majority of projects were found in Vaults 8, 9, and 10);


7-3 City of Modesto


• City’s GIS database (last updated on 1/21/2015) of water system facilities

(e.g., pipelines, wells, pump stations, etc.);

• City Water Operations staff field notes and mapbooks;

• Metered account and flat rate account information; and

• Historical SCADA system data.

7.4 HYDRAULIC MODEL UPDATES

The following subsections summarize the tasks completed to update the City’s current hydraulic

model for the contiguous water system.

7.4.1 Review of Existing Water System Facilities

Based on a review of the available facilities data on the existing contiguous water system,

provided to West Yost by City staff, the following facilities have been added or updated in the

City’s current contiguous water system hydraulic model:

• Transmission pipelines along the Virginia Corridor;

• Transmission pipelines in South Modesto;

• Various pipeline replacements throughout the contiguous service area;

• New pipeline installation by the City and developers;

• Pipelines with incorrect diameters (based on the City’s most recent geodatabase, and

City Water Operations staff input) and/or C-factors;

• Miscellaneous small diameter looping pipelines;

• Well 63 (McKinley Park);

• Well 66 (Tank 10 Fill Well);

• Facilities associated with Tier 2 Downstream Water System Improvements; and

• Well pump curves, design points, and well pumping levels (updated to reflect pump

test data from October and November 2014).

West Yost reviewed drawings provided by the City and updated the City’s existing contiguous

hydraulic model to reflect the as-built drawings. After the model pipelines were updated to

reflect the as-built drawings, they were then compared to the City’s GIS database (dated

1/21/2015). Inconsistencies between the two were identified and provided to City Water

Operations staff on large-scale maps to facilitate review and comment. The model was then

further updated to incorporate review comments by City Water Operations staff.

The locations of the new and revised system facilities listed above that have been incorporated

into the current model to accurately represent the City’s existing contiguous distribution system

are shown on Figure 7-1.


7-4 City of Modesto


7.4.2 Water Demand Allocation

Water demands were allocated in the hydraulic model using the spatially-located water meter

and flat rate account data described in Chapter 3. InfoWater’s® Demand Allocator Tool

automatically assigns the spatially-located demand point to the closest pipeline node in the water

system. West Yost staff then reviewed the allocated water demand to confirm that the demands

were allocated properly.

Water demand within the hydraulic model was allocated by account type to provide City staff

with additional flexibility in the model. Table 7-1 presents the demand column assigned to each

account type within the hydraulic model.

Table 7-1. Account Type Assignment

Account Type Demand Column in Model(a)

Metered Accounts 1

Flat Rate Accounts 2

Buildout Demands 3

(a) Column number corresponds to Demand # Column in the junction database of the InfoWater Model.

7.5 HYDRAULIC MODEL CALIBRATION (STEADY-STATE)

The City’s hydraulic model was calibrated to confirm that the computer simulation model can

accurately represent the operation of the City’s contiguous water system under varying

conditions. West Yost prepared a TM summarizing the recommended hydrant test locations and

procedures on June 19, 2015 (see Appendix K). A summary of the hydrant tests, results, and

hydraulic model calibration, findings, and conclusions is presented below.

7.5.1 Development of Hydrant (C-Factor) Tests

Locations were chosen for possible hydrant flow testing as shown on Figure 7-2. Selection of

these hydrant test sites was primarily based on pipeline size, material and age. However, hydrant

test locations also considered proximity to drainage features or nearby beneficial uses

(e.g., parks, storm drain basins, open lots, etc.), repeat tests3 and overall coverage of the City’s

contiguous area. These hydrant tests were used to evaluate pipeline friction coefficients

(C-Factors) currently assigned in the model4, C-Factors assigned to new pipelines, and to ensure

that the hydraulic model closely represented actual observed pressure conditions in the field.

3 Tests identified as a “Repeat Test” are repeat tests from the Hydraulic Model Development, Calibration and

Verification Technical Memorandum completed by West Yost in 2003. The purpose of repeating the hydrant test is

to confirm or compare the assigned C-Factor determined in the 2003 calibration effort.

4 C-Factors currently assigned in the model are based on Table 6 from the Hydraulic Model Development,

Calibration and Verification Technical Memorandum completed by West Yost in 2003.


7-5 City of Modesto


Hydrant flow testing was performed on December 9 and 10, 2015. Each hydrant test involved

flowing water through pipelines of a specific size, material type, and age5 and then measuring the

pressure drops through the pipelines to determine the friction loss. The hydrant test procedure

consisted of monitoring discharge flow and pressure at the key flowing hydrant, and pressures at

the other hydrants along the supply route to the key hydrant. Static pressures were measured while

the key hydrant was closed, and residual pressures were measured while the key hydrant was

flowing. Each hydrant test typically consists of two or more nearby observation hydrants. These

observed hydrants are identified by the test number and then an alphanumeric designation based on

their location in relation to the flowing hydrants with A being the closest and D being the furthest.

For example, in Test 1, the first observed hydrant closest to the hydrant which is being flowed is

referred to as Hydrant 1A, the next closest observation hydrant is Hydrant 1B, etc.

HSQ Technology (HSQ), who currently manages the City’s SCADA system, provided SCADA

data for tank levels, pump station flow and discharge pressure, and well station flow and

discharge pressure at one-minute intervals from December 8 to December 11, 2015; which

provided data for the hydrant testing period, as well as a day before and a day after. This

provided information on the operation of the City’s water system during the hydrant tests and

was also used to determine the City’s overall water demand during the hydrant testing period.

Table 7-2 provides a description of each hydrant test location and status, including the test

pipeline material type, age, diameter, approximate location and details regarding each test

(if applicable). All 20 of the originally planned tests were completed, which included one test in

the City’s Del Rio outlying service area. Two alternate hydrant tests were also developed as

additional tests to be completed if time permitted; however, as noted in Table 7-2, these two

alternate hydrant tests were not completed.

Each hydrant flow test was simulated in the City’s contiguous water system hydraulic model.

Model-simulated results were compared to the field-observed data to determine the accuracy of

the hydraulic model. The differences between field-observed static and residual pressures for the

field hydrant tests were calculated and compared to the pressures simulated by the model. The

goal of the calibration effort was to achieve no greater than a 5 psi differential between the field

hydrant test data and the model-simulated results, based on standard engineering practice for

model calibration in water system master planning. Results from the hydrant tests are discussed

in more detail in the following subsections.

5 For each hydrant test, system valves and/or well facilities were closed as necessary to isolate pipelines of a specific

size, material type, and age.


7-6 City of Modesto


Table 7-2. Hydrant Test Locations

Test No.

Pipeline Material

Installation Year

Pipeline Diameter,

inches Location Comments Status

1 AC 1973 6 Near the intersection of

Ortega Road and Galvez Avenue - Completed

2 CI 1966 6 Along Kientiz Avenue near

Steuden Way - Completed

3 AC 1992 8 Along Norik Drive near

Manor Oak Drive - Completed

4 AC 1986 6 Along Pantaleo Drive near

Carmella Way - Completed

5 AC 1959/1965 6 Along Wycliffe Drive near

Scenic Drive Repeat Hydrant Test Completed

6 AC 1989 6 Along Larned Lane near

Goodland Court - Completed

7 AC 1970 6 Along El Goya Drive near

N. Riverside Drive - Completed

8 STL 1962 6 Along Moran Avenue near

Phoenix Avenue - Completed

9 AC 1986 6 Along Albion Way near July Drive - Completed

10 AC 1980 10 Along Jim Way. Near

Olivero Road Repeat Hydrant Test,

Near Drainage Feature Completed

11 AC 1981 8 Along Hanh Drive near

English Oaks Drive Near Drainage Feature Completed

12 CI 1939 6 Along Hilton Street near

Enslen Avenue - Completed

13 CI 1959 6 Along Lauralee Court near

Carver Road - Completed

14 CI 1977 6 Along Wellington Drive near

York Way - Completed

15 AC 1976 6 Along Rugby Lane near

Rexford Drive - Completed

16 AC 1981 8 Along Elmo Loop near

Snyder Avenue Well 63 was taken offline for this test

Completed

17 STL Unk(a) 8 Along River Road near

Herndon Road - Completed

18 PVC Unk(a) 8 Along Country View Drive near

Stonegate Drive Del Rio Completed

19 STL 1945/2000 6 Along Paradise Road near

Pauline Avenue - Completed

20 AC 1978/1986 10 Along Semallon Drive near

Virginia Corridor Near Drainage Feature Completed

21 AC 1980 6 Along Melgren Avenue near

Gagos Drive Alternate location

Not Completed

22 PVC Unk(a) 8 Along Anada Court near

Greco Lane Alternate location

Not Completed

(a) Hydrant test will be used to confirm the C-Factor in this area, since age is not known.


7-7 City of Modesto


7.5.2 Hydrant (C-Factor) Test Results

Results of the simulated hydrant flow tests generally validated the water system configuration

and pipeline C-Factors assigned in the hydraulic model, and further adjustments to pipeline C-

Factors were not required. A summary of the hydrant test calibration results is provided in

Appendix L.

However, based on the comparison of the collected hydrant test data and model simulation

results, five of the hydrant tests required further review and evaluation because they did not

initially meet the ±5 psi tolerance limit for calibration. Tests 5 and 8 required some localized C-

Factor adjustments due to incorrect material assignments and pipeline conditions, respectively.

For the remaining three tests, it did not appear that the discrepancies would have been corrected

by pipeline C-Factor adjustments. Further discussion regarding these tests is provided in

Appendix L.

7.5.3 Hydraulic Model Calibration Findings and Conclusions

In summary, the results from the hydrant tests indicate that the hydraulic model is generally

well-calibrated and within a 5 psi pressure differential from the field, and validates the C-Factors

currently assigned in the hydraulic model. Nineteen hydrant tests were conducted within the

contiguous water system, and five required additional review. Of these five tests, two tests

indicated potential errors with field measurements at the observed Hydrant B, two tests were

corrected under the assumption of a partially opened valve and one test indicated a localized

issue with the previously assigned C-Factor and was corrected by a localized update.

Tests 5 and 10 were “repeat tests” from the 2003 calibration effort and were repeated as part of

this calibration effort to evaluate if C-Factors have deteriorated over time. As noted in the section

above, the tested pipeline as part of Test 5 was found to have an incorrect material type and

associated C-Factor and thus, no conclusion can be drawn with respect to deterioration of this

pipeline. However, the tested pipeline as part of Test 10 (10-inch, AC) was found to have a C-

Factor of 125 in the 2003 calibration effort. The results as part of this calibration effort confirm

that a C-Factor of 125 remains appropriate for this pipeline and no significant deterioration can

be inferred.

Overall, these results indicate that the City’s contiguous water system hydraulic model can

accurately simulate a fire flow or other large demand condition within the City’s contiguous

water service area.

7.6 HYDRAULIC MODEL VERIFICATION (EXTENDED PERIOD SIMULATION)

Verifying that a hydraulic model replicates field conditions requires thorough knowledge of how

the water system performs over a range of operating conditions. In an effort to ensure that the

hydraulic model was correctly configured and capable of producing results that are consistent

with those observed in the field, a verification process was conducted for City’s contiguous

water system.


7-8 City of Modesto


Hydrant pressure recorders (HPRs) were used to record pressures throughout the City’s contiguous

water system and in the outlying Del Rio service area. The data collected by the HPRs was then

compared to model-simulated pressures at the same system locations. West Yost prepared a TM

summarizing the recommended program for HPR placement on September 18, 2015 (see

Appendix M). Other pressure points monitored by the City (e.g., well flows and discharge

pressures, tank levels, pump station flows, and discharge pressures) were also used in the

verification process. The descriptions of the verification process and results are discussed below.

7.6.1 Hydrant Pressure Recording

Nineteen HPRs were placed in 34 different locations within the City’s Contiguous and Outlying

Del Rio Service Areas over a two-week period (from November 30, 2015 to December 17,

2015). Each HPR measured field pressure conditions at a particular location for approximately a

week. These locations were selected based on their proximity to the transmission mains,

elevation (low and high), and distance from major tank and well facilities. Figure 7-3 shows the

locations where HPRs were installed and pressure monitored by monitoring group.

The HPRs were grouped into two rotation cycles. The first rotation cycle generally covered the

City’s northern portion of the contiguous water system (November 30, 2015 to December 9,

2015). The second rotation cycle (December 9, 2015 to December 17, 2015) covered the City’s

southern portion of the contiguous water system and outlying Del Rio system. There were four

HPRs (HPRs 1, 6, 2 and 11) which remained deployed for the entire two-week monitoring

period. These four HPR Locations were intended to capture boundary information between the

northern and the southern portions of the contiguous water system for the entire monitoring

period. Data was not obtained for HPRs 7, 30, and 31 due to defective HPRs. As a result, the

HPR monitoring plan was adjusted to omit collection of these HPRs and to move HPR 9 to the

second monitoring period. The absence of data from these HPRs did not compromise the

verification process because data obtained from nearby HPRs, wells and tank facilities was able

to be used.

7.6.2 Diurnal Curve Development

A true extended period simulation (EPS) requires realistic diurnal water demand patterns that

reflect the City’s actual water use trends. By developing and incorporating a diurnal water

demand pattern, the hydraulic model can more accurately represent fluctuations in water demand

over the selected time period. West Yost developed representative 24-hour diurnal water demand

patterns for the City’s overall contiguous water system using system data collected through the

SCADA system to add the time variable to the hydraulic model.

To develop the 24-hour diurnal water demand patterns, City and HSQ staff provided West Yost

with SCADA system data at 30-minute intervals in electronic format on the City’s tank levels,

flows, and pump discharge pressures during the period from November 30 to December 17, 2015

(concurrent with the HPR monitoring period and representative of winter conditions) and during

the period from July 7 to July 14, 2013 (representative of summer conditions). After reviewing

the 30-minute production data for both time periods (i.e., summer and winter), West Yost

selected two dates during the winter monitoring period and one date during the summer period to

perform the verification, as summarized in Table 7-3.


7-9 City of Modesto


Table 7-3. Summary of Verification Dates

Water Demand Scenario Time Frame

Winter: HPR Rotation 1 December 3, 2015

Winter: HPR Rotation 2 December 15, 2015

Summer July 9, 2013

The winter verification dates were selected because HPRs were deployed in two cycles and thus,

one day within each rotation cycle was selected. For the summer, the date selected was

concurrent with the peak demand during the two weeks of summer data provided. West Yost

subsequently developed 24-hour diurnal water demand patterns for each of these dates and

integrated them into the hydraulic model. A separate EPS was then performed for each of the

diurnal water demand patterns. The primary purpose of the verification was to verify that the

model can generally replicate the City’s well and tank facilities and that pressures generally meet

observed trends and remain within ±5 psi. To verify whether the City’s hydraulic model was

accurately predicting actual water system tank levels, flow and pressures, model-simulated tank

levels, flows and pressures were compared to the field-observed data. Results from the

verification process are discussed below.

7.6.3 Verification Results

As noted above, West Yost evaluated and verified three different demand conditions. Graphs of

the representative comparisons between model-simulated and field-observed tank levels, flows,

and pressures for major facilities are provided in Appendices N, O, and P. Example graphs of the

representative comparisons between model-simulated and field-observed tank levels, flows and

pressures are shown on Figure 7-4 through Figure 7-6. Results from each of the different

verification scenarios are discussed in the sections below.

7.6.3.1 Winter [12/03/2015] Verification Results

Graphs of the representative comparisons between model-simulated and field-observed tank

levels, flows, and pressures for major facilities and HPRs for this verification scenario are

provided in Appendix N. Based on the City’s SCADA system, Terminal Reservoir, Tank 7 and

Tank 3 were offline during this day. Therefore, the entire contiguous water system demand was

met by the remaining contiguous service area tanks and wells.

Graphs of the representative comparisons between model-simulated and field-observed pressures

at each HPR location are provided on Appendix N Figures 1 through 8. As shown by the figures,

the model-simulated pressures trend closely to the field-recorded pressure readings during the

extended period simulation and remain within ±5 psi throughout the entire simulation.

Verification results throughout the entire contiguous service area indicate that model-simulated

flows out of the tank facilities generally trended well. As shown on Appendix N Figures 9 through

17, though flows are not exact, model-simulated tank booster pump station flows trend well with

SCADA recorded flows and nearly all model-simulated discharge pressures are within ±5 psi of

SCADA recorded pressures. Model-simulated tank levels also trended well with SCADA recorded


7-10 City of Modesto


levels. Differences between model-simulated tank levels and SCADA recorded levels can be

attributed to differences in model-simulated flows. Similar to tank and booster pump station

results, model-simulated flows and pressures comparisons at the City’s wells are similar to the

collected SCADA system data. As shown on Appendix N Figures 18 through 27, though flows are

not exact, the model-simulated flow trends follow closely to SCADA recorded flows and nearly all

model-simulated pressures are within ±5 psi of SCADA recorded pressures. Overall, the

comparisons between model-simulated and field-observed data from the City’s wells and tanks

indicate that the model was able to generally replicate field conditions.

7.6.3.2 Winter [12/15/2015] Verification Results


levels, flows, and pressures for major facilities and HPRs for this verification scenario are

provided in Appendix O. Based on the City’s SCADA system, Tank 7 and Tank 12 were offline

during this day. Tank 3 only operated during the first two hours and remained offline for the rest

of the day. Terminal Reservoir was online during this verification day and was supplemented by

the remaining tanks and wells. It should be noted that fewer wells were online during this day as

a result of Terminal Reservoir being online.

Graphs of the representative comparisons between model-simulated and field-observed pressures

at each HPR location are provided on Appendix O Figures 1 through 7. As shown by the figures,

the model-simulated pressures trend closely to the field-recorded pressure readings during the

extended period simulation and remain within ±5 psi throughout the entire simulation. It should

be noted that model-simulated (and SCADA recorded) system pressures are much more

stabilized due to the operation of Terminal Reservoir.

Verification results throughout the entire contiguous service area indicate that model-simulated

flows out of the tank facilities generally trended well. As shown on Appendix O Figures 8

through 16, though flows are not exact, model-simulated booster pump station flows trend well

with SCADA recorded flows and nearly all model-simulated discharge pressures are within

±5 psi of SCADA recorded pressures. Model-simulated tank levels also trended well with

SCADA recorded levels. Differences between model-simulated tank levels and SCADA

recorded levels can be attributed to differences in model-simulated flows. Similar to the tank and

booster pump station results, model-simulated flows and pressures comparisons at the City’s

wells are similar to the collected SCADA system data. As shown on Appendix O Figures 17

through 22, though flows are not exact, the model-simulated flow trends follow closely to

SCADA recorded flows and nearly all model-simulated pressures are within ±5 psi of SCADA

recorded pressures. Overall, the comparisons between model-simulated and field-observed data

from the City’s wells and tanks indicate that the model was able to generally replicate

field conditions.


7-11 City of Modesto


7.6.3.3 Summer [07/09/2013] Verification Results


levels, flows, and pressures for major facilities for this verification scenario are provided in

Appendix P. Since HPR information is not available to confirm operations of the major facilities,

only pressure comparisons are provided for major facilities to evaluate if the model could

replicate similar pressure trends at major supply facilities during this verification day.

As shown on Appendix P Figures 1 through 15, verification results at the City’s major tank and

well facilities active during this verification day indicate that the model-simulated pressures are

similar to the collected SCADA data. Overall, the comparisons between model-simulated and

field-observed data from the City’s tanks and wells indicate that the model was able to generally

replicate field conditions.

7.6.4 Hydraulic Model Verification Findings and Conclusions

Overall, the results from the hydraulic model verification process validated the existing system

configuration and demand allocation in the hydraulic model. Tank level, pump station flow rate,

and discharge pressure comparisons at nearly all of the City’s operated facilities trended well

with the collected SCADA system data during the three selected 24-hour periods selected.

Comparisons of HPR and model-simulated pressure data also trended well during the two

selected verification days (where HPR data is available).

Based on the results from each of the verification days, it can be concluded that the hydraulic

model provides an accurate operational representation of the City’s existing contiguous water

system, and is suitable for use as a planning and operational tool. However, it is recommended

that the City continue to update and verify the pipeline system configurations in the hydraulic

model as facilities are constructed or replaced, to maintain a hydraulic model that will continue

to accurately represent the City’s existing contiguous water system.

0 10.5

Miles

Notes1. Per Tier 2 Improvement drawings, Control Valve 15 was abandoned, thus the hydraulic model was updated to reflect this change.2. Where pump test data was avaliable (per testing during 2014), well design points and curves were adjusted to reflect testing results.

FIGURE 7-1City of Modesto

Water Master Plan

NEW AND REVISEDEXISTING SYSTEM

FACILITIES

#*

#*

XW XW

XW

XWXW

XW

XW

XWXW

XW

XW

BECKWITH RD

TU

LLY

RD

MC

HE

NR

Y A

VE

CO

FF

EE

RD

WOODLAND AVE

PARADISE RD

MILNES RD

PARKER RD

OA

KD

AL

E R

D

CA

RV

ER

RD

DA

LE

RD

MAZE BLV

CALIFORNIA AVE

MIT

CH

EL

L R

D

ÄÆ99

132

¬«132

63

66

9.5B9

8C

1011A

14

19

14A16

19A

2A

LEGEND

#* New Well

XW Tier 2 PRV Improvements

Added Pipeline or RevisedPer As-Built Drawings

Updated Pipeline per CityWater Ops Comments

Added Small DiameterLooping (For ModelRefinement)

Existing Pipeline

Contiguous Service Area

Last Saved: 1/3/2017 10:50:41 AM bvera; O:\Clients\418 City of Modesto\02-14-36 Water Master Plan\GIS\Figures\Fig7-1_New and Revised Facilities.mxd

0 10.5

Miles


Water Master Plan

HYDRANT TESTLOCATIONS

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UTUT

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2!!2

!!2

!!2

G!.

G!.G!.

G!.

G!.G!. G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

G!.

BECKWITH RD

TULLY RD

MC HENRY AVE

COFFEE RD

WOODL AND AV E

PARADISE RD

MIL NES RD

PARKER RD

OAKDALE RD

CARVER RD

DALE RD

MAZE BL V

CAL IFORNIA AV E

MITCHELL RD

ÄÆ99

132

¬«132

1

3

4

53

22

29

30

36

38

61

63

49

62

64

66

100

213

214

217

223

229

237

250

281

284

287

288

290

297

305

312

313

2

67

10

14

16

17

18

21

57

59

25

3337

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

50

51

52

54

56

58

298

301304

65

204211

212

216

225

226

232

236

241

247

259

262

264

265

267

269

277

278

279283

285291292

299

300

307

308

310

T04

T06

T07

T03

T05

T10

T12

T08

MID

#22

#9#13

#11

#21#16 #20

#14

#1

#15

#2#12

#17

#19

#7

#8#6

#4#3

#5

#10

1

2B

345

6

7

11

11B

1213

17

18

21

9.5B9

8C

1011A

14

19

14A16

19A

2A

L EGENDG!. Flow Hydra n t

G!.Altern a te Flow Hydra n t(Not Tested)

#* Groun dwa ter Well

UTTa n k a n d Booster Pum pSta tion

!!2 MID Turn outPipelin es > 24-in ches12-in ches < Pipelin es ≤24-in chesPipelin es ≤ 12-in chesCon tiguous Service Area

L a st Sa ved: 12/29/2016 5:56:04 PM bvera ; O:\Clien ts\418 City of Modesto\02-14-36 Wa ter Ma ster Pla n \GIS\Figures\Fig7-2_Hydra n t Test L oca tion s.m xd

G!.

#*

#*#*

MC HENRY AVE

COU NTRYCL U B DR

CARVER RD

ST JOHNS RD271

282289

#18

0 10.5

M iles

No tes:1. HPR 9 wa s o rigin a lly in ten ded to b e deplo yed durin g Week 1, ho wever, due to a defective HPR, da ta a t this lo ca tio n wa s co llected durin g Week 2.


Water Master Plan

HPR LOCATIONS

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UT

UTUT

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2

!!2!!2

!!2

!!2

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.*G!.

*G!.*G!.

[G!.

*G!.*G!.

*G!. *G!.

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.*G!.

*G!.

*G!.*G!.

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.

*G!.*G!.

BECKWITH RD

TULLY RD

MC HENRY AVE

COFFEE RD

WOODLAND AVE

PARADISE RD

M ILNES RD

PARKER RD

OAKDALE RD

CARVER RD

DALE RD

M AZE BLV

CALIFORNIA AVE

MITCHELL RD

ÄÆ99

132

¬«132

1

3

4

53

22

29

30

36

38

61

63

49

62

64

66

100

213

214

217

223

229

237

250

281

284

287

288

290

297

305

312

313

2

67

10

14

16

17

18

21

57

59

25

3337

39

40

41

42

43

45

46

47

48

50

51

52

54

56

58

298

301304

65

204211

212

216

225

226

232

236

241

247

259

262

264

265

267

269

277

278

279283

285291292

299

300

307

308

310

T04

T06

T07

T03

T05

T10

T12

T08

MID

#19

#20

#14

#15

#18

#17

#7

#12#24

#26#25

#28

#10

#22

#21

#4

#6

#3

#9

#27

#13

#8

#5

#23

#16

#11

#1

#2

1

2B

345

6

7

11

11B

1213

17

18

21

9.5B9

8C

1011A

14

19

14A16

19A

2A

LEGEND

*G!. Week 1 HPR

*G!. Week 2 HPR

*G!. Week 1 a n d 2 HPR

[G!. HPR M a lfun ctio n ed, No Da ta

#* Gro un dwa ter Well

UTTa n k a n d Bo o ster Pum pSta tio n

!!2 M ID Turn o utPipelin es > 24-in ches12-in ches < Pipelin es ≤ 24-in chesPipelin es ≤ 12-in chesCo n tiguo us Service Area

La st Sa ved: 12/29/2016 6:05:27 PM b vera ; O:\Clien ts\418 City o f M o desto \02-14-36 Wa ter M a ster Pla n \GIS\Figures\Fig7-3_HPR Lo ca tio n s.m xd

#*

#*#*

*G!. *G!.

[G!.[G!.

MC HENRY AVE

COUNTRYCLUB DR

CARVER RD

ST JOHNS RD271

282289

#32 #29

#30#31

Figure 7-4. Example HPR Comparison Graphs: [Round 2] HPR 6 and 9

December 15, 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Pre

ss

ure

(p

si)

Time (hour)

HPR 6: Oakdale Road, south of Surrey Avenue along west side of Oakdale Road

HPR MODEL

Note:- Error bars indicate a ±5 psi differential.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Pre

ss

ure

(p

si)

Time (hour)

HPR 9: Needam Avenue, between Nellie & College Avenues

HPR MODEL

Note:- Error bars indicate a ±5 psi differential.

o\c\418\02-14-36\e\t220\verification\HPRs_Comparison.xlsxLast Revised: 06-22-2016

City of ModestoWater Master Plan

Figure 7-5. Example Tank Level and Booster Station Graph: Tank 10 Comparison

December 15, 2015

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1,000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Pre

ss

ure

(p

si)

To

tal F

low

(g

pm

)

Time (hour)

Pump Flow and Pressure Comparison

SCADA Flow Model Simulated Flow SCADA Discharge Pressure Model Discharge Pressure

- Error bar for pressure is 5 psi.

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

28

32

36

40

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Ta

nk

Le

ve

l (f

ee

t)

Time (hour)

Tank Level Comparison

SCADA Tank Level Model Simulated Tank Level Tank Overflow Level

o\c\418\02-14-36\e\t220\verification\tank_comparison_121515.xlsxLast Revised: 06-22-2016


Figure 7-6. Example Well Comparison: Well 41 and 58

December 15, 2015

-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

600

1,200

1,800

2,400

3,000

3,600

4,200

4,800

5,400

6,000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Pre

ss

ure

(p

si)

To

tal F

low

(g

pm

)

Time (hour)

Well 41: Flow and Pressure Comparison



-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

600

1,200

1,800

2,400

3,000

3,600

4,200

4,800

5,400

6,000

0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24

Pre

ss

ure

(p

si)

To

tal F

low

(g

pm

)

Time (hour)

Well 58: Flow and Pressure Comparison



o\c\418\02-14-36\e\t220\verification\well_comparison_121515.xlsxLast Revised: 06-22-2016


Chapter 7 Hydraulic Model Updates - Modesto, CA

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 7 Hydraulic Model Updates - Modesto, CA