You are on page 1of 20

Section 5

Section 5 Hydraulic Model Development

5.1

Model Selection

As part of this wastewater collection system master plan, Hazen and Sawyer conducted a thorough evaluation of non-proprietary sewer modeling software packages in the public domain and on the commercial market. These efforts were focused on four modeling

packages: SewerCAD from Haestad Methods, XPSWMM from XP Software, the MIKE products (MIKE SWMM, MOUSE) from Danish Hydraulic Institute (DHI), and the HydroWorksTM products (HydroWorks, InfoWorks) from Wallingford Software.

The master plan is intended to utilize the functionality of sewer model software in order to evaluate the hydraulic capacity of the collection system for existing and future flow conditions and to identify possible deficiencies in the system and prioritize future work for the Town of Cary. The model was also intended to be used to quantify the infiltration/inflow (I/I) problems in the collection system. Therefore, the selected software should employ a stable numeral hydraulic engine, which will closely represent the real-world conditions and significantly reduce the time required for model construction, validation, and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC). At the same time, the software should provide a userfriendly graphical interface that allows for the convenient data sharing with the Town of Carys GIS system, which will facilitate the decision-making process for the Town in the future planning. Both considerations are equally important in the selection of a software package.

In the current market, the four software packages listed above represent the cutting edge in the dynamic (psuedo-dynamic) sewer-modeling field. summarized briefly in the following sections. Each software package is

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-1

5.1.1

SewerCAD

Although SewerCAD from Haestad Methods, located in Waterbury, CT, is not a true dynamic model, it can capture a snap-shot in the simulated system over a given time period. It can efficiently interface with AutoCAD (from AutoDesk) and ArcView (from

Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI)). A DXF or DWG file can be imported into the model and used as the background. The users can also utilize AutoCAD native commands (like MOVE and ERASE) in order to manipulate the system. The data sharing function with ESRIs ArcView is also very easy to use. Shapefiles can be directly exported into GIS and be manipulated using GIS software.

5.1.2

XPSWMM

XPSWMM was originally developed by XP Software in Tampa, FL. XPSWMM utilizes USEPAs Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) algorithm as its numerical engine, but also includes many of its own proprietary features. It employs a variable time step

technique, and can use smaller or larger time steps when appropriate. It alleviates the problems of using a matrix solution. This is especially important in urban systems, where steeply rising hydrographs require model changes within seconds or fractions of a second.

XPSWMM has three layers, a stormwater layer, a wastewater layer and a hydro-dynamic layer. The stormwater layer is used for hydrology and water quality generation. The

wastewater layer is used for generation of wastewater flows, including storage/treatment for water quality routing. The hydro-dynamic layer is used for the hydraulic simulation of both open and closed conduit wastewater or stormwater systems.

A Global Database contains design and measured storm events, infiltration data, pollutant data and other data required to run XPSWMM. The different layers of XPSWMM are connected to the global data required for the simulation. Typical XPSWMM applications include predicting combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), interconnected pond analysis, open and closed conduit flow analysis, major/minor flow

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-2

analysis, design of new development, and analysis of existing stormwater and wastewater collection systems.

5.1.3

MIKE Products

5.1.3.1

MOUSE

MOUSE (Modeling Of Urban Sewer), from the Danish Hydraulic Institute, is a dynamic user-friendly model for the analysis, design, management and operation of both simple and complex pipe networks. It provides a complete and effective working environment for

sophisticated stormwater and wastewater collection system engineering.

MOUSE is operated through a Windows-based interactive dialogue system. includes efficient boundary data storage and retrieval facilities.

MOUSE

The databases are

independent of the operating system; so, boundary data can be transferred from one computer to another and used in different applications. The boundary database facility of MOUSE can also be used independently as a general hydrological database for urban catchments.

The Pipe Flow Model in MOUSE can carry out the computations for unsteady flow in pipe networks. The computations are founded on an implicit, finite difference numerical solution of the basic one dimensional, free surface flow equations (St. Venant). The implemented algorithm has a self-adapting time step, and it provides efficient and accurate solutions in multiple connected branched and looped pipe networks.

The computational scheme is applicable to vertically homogeneous flow conditions, which can occur in pipes ranging from small-diameter collectors, to low-lying, often pressurized, interceptors affected by varying outlet water levels. Both subcritical and supercritical flows are treated by means of the same numerical scheme, which adapts to the local flow conditions. Flow phenomena, such as backwater effects and surcharges, are precisely simulated. Pressurized flow computations are facilitated through the implementation of a narrow slot, used as a vertical extension of the closed pipe cross-section. Free surface and

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-3

pressurized flows are thus described within the same basic algorithm, which ensures a smooth and stable transition in all situations.

MOUSE GIS works in the ArcView environment and consists of two parts: the Network Editor and the Results Presentation. The Network Editor allows the user to extract data from a number of different asset management systems, to condense the network automatically while still maintaining consistency in the description of the physical system, and finally to store the data as a model for further analysis in MOUSE. The decisions made by the program in the simplification process are based on user-specified criteria. All

changes are recorded on a separate file, which can be replayed if the user wants to repeat the process, e.g., after changes are made in the asset management system. The Results Presentation allows the user to present results from the fully dynamic MOUSE simulations in combination with other GIS data. CSO points and volumes and exceedances of critical levels can quickly be identified. By direct access to the asset management databases, the simulation results can also be visualized in combination with parameters describing the actual condition of the sewer system or any another relevant information from the database. 5.1.3.2 MIKE SWMM

MIKE SWMM, also from the Danish Hydraulic Institute, is the product of a collaborative effort of DHI and Camp, Dresser and McKee (CDM). It is built around USEPAs SWMM non-proprietary mathematical model. SWMM is widely recognized and accepted in the industry and the regulatory community.

The user interface for MIKE SWMM was developed from DHIs state-of-the-art MOUSE user interface, GIS links, and add-on modules. Data can be digitized and viewed with background images and edited with the same graphical editors that are part of DHIs MOUSE system. Data can also be entered and edited through carefully designed and flexible database forms, which include scrollable spreadsheet-like sections for efficient editing of tabulated data. These different editors or views of the same information are

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-4

dynamically linked, so that changes introduced through one editor are automatically and instantly updated in the other views.

5.1.4

InfoWorks (HydroWorks)

InfoWorks (HydroWorks) was developed by Wallingford Software, located in the United Kingdom. It utilizes a new Time Series simulation engine, which allows planners and engineers to predict environmental impacts following a rainfall event by providing fast, accurate and stable modeling of the key elements of separate or combined sewer systems. This powerful numerical engine provides automatic time-stepping and implicit numerical solutions to optimize runtime and to ensure mathematical stability. The software incorporates full solution modeling of backwater effects and reverse flows, open channel, trunk sewers, complex pipe connections and complex ancillary structures. The software contains comprehensive diagnostic error checking and warning, along with rapid access to full on-line documentation that is integrated within the help system.

InfoWorks incorporates full interactive views of data, using geographical plan views, long sections, spreadsheets and time-varying graphical data. Access to the underlying data is available from any graphical or geographical view. Animated presentation of the results in Geographical Plan, Long Section and three dimensional (3D) junction views is standard, together with results reporting and flood frequency analysis using tables and graphs. By using the industry standard (Microsoft Jet) database engine, as used in Microsoft Access, InfoWorks provides the ability to review current and historical model network versions and attribute data. The direct links between InfoWorks and MapInfo Professional or ArcView GIS enable data to be converted directly into the InfoWorks model database for model building.

5.1.5

Model Selection Conclusions and Recommendations

As opposed to the three other modeling software packages, SewerCAD is inherently a static model. It creates an overly conservative estimate of peak flows and does not

accurately represent the system hydraulics. Most dynamic models (SWMM, MOUSE and

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-5

InfoWorks

TM

), on the other hand, solve the St. Venant equations to provide efficient and The major difference among the dynamic

accurate solutions for branched networks.

models is the solution technique or numeric method used to solve the St. Venant equations. Both MOUSE and InfoWorks TM use an implicit solution technique, while SWMM uses an explicit solution technique of the finite difference method. The solution techniques of SWMM have been known to exhibit numerical instabilities in the model results that do not reflect the hydraulics of the system. A case study for the City of Charlotte Andover Road Storm Drainage Area showed that simulated flow data became erroneous and inherently unstable as flow depth approaches the crown of a pipe, which would result in a significant over-design of the sewer system if those errors were not recognized, as shown in Figure 5-1. As additional links and interfaces are added, the collaborative model has a higher probability of inheriting errors from these different program modules. Resolving the numerical instabilities is time consuming and expensive. Although MIKE SWMM and

XPSWMM have made some improvements, they still may inherently pose potential stability problems in their computational schemes. packages is not recommended. Figure 5-1 Town of Cary Example of SWMM Engine Instability Therefore, use of either of these software

400.00

Model Simulation Output Capacity 329.38 cfs


300.00

200.00

Evidence of Engine Resulting Instability in Over-Design Sewer Collection of System

100.00

Actual Capacity 118 cfs

.0000

TIME (HOURS)

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-6

Both InfoWorksTM and MOUSE, on the other hand, have a more stable model engine with a self debugging mechanism built-in. It significantly enhances the ability to identify possible errors in model construction, and reduces the labor cost associated with the debugging of the model.

With regard to the user-friendly graphical interfaces provided by all the software, and their GIS integration capability, InfoWorks and MOUSE appear to stand out from the other software packages. The Town of Cary is currently using MapInfo software in their GIS department. InfoWorks will work directly with MapInfo for mapping purpose, whereas

MOUSE is currently integrating with the GIS package ArcView from ESRI. After communication with personnel in the Towns GIS department, the data exchange capability between the MapInfo and ArcView files does not appear to be a problem. Therefore, both software packages are competitive in this regard. Table 5-1 shows a matrix comparing the differences among the dynamic sewer models evaluated. Both InfoWorks and MOUSE appear to be excellent choices for the Town. However, the MOUSE software package, including real-time control, GIS interface and an unlimited number of pipes, is approximately half the cost of the InfoWorks software package, which only allows the use of 2,000 pipes. Additionally, MOUSE offers a government discount of 20% off its listed price when purchased by the Town of Cary.

Due to its stable dynamic numerical engine, user-friendly graphical interface, database and GIS integration capability, and competitive price, MOUSE from DHI is the recommended hydraulic modeling software package for the Towns wastewater collection system master plan.

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-7

Table 5-1 Dynamic Sewer Model Comparison Matrix

Feature Dynamic Model Loop & Branched Network Quantify SSO Spills Model Surcharges and Reverse Flows Model Pump Stations and Siphons User-friendly Original Windows-Based GIS Ready Stable Work Engine Self-Validity Diagnostic Real-Time Control Manipulation of Raw Data Software Support Price (Year 2000 Prices)

XPSWMM

MIKE SWMM (DHI)

MOUSE (DHI)

InfoWorks

$41,000

$13,990

$12,395

$20,000

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-8

5.2

Model Development

5.2.1

General Description

The Town of Cary maintains a comprehensive GIS system for its wastewater collection system. It includes 15,520 sewer pipes, with diameters ranging from 4 inches to 54 inches. The total number of manholes is 15,529. There are 29 pump stations and two wastewater treatment plants (water reclamation facilities). The GIS system provided a data structure for the following information regarding each entity of the system:

Manhole location Manhole invert and rim elevation Piping connection Diameter of each pipe Material of each pipe Inverts of each pipe.

Complete information was not available for every pipe and manhole. In addition, the construction of the dynamic hydraulic model necessitated obtaining information regarding the wet well dimensions, pump control levels, and pumping rate of each pump station, which were provided by Town staff.

To efficiently simulate the system and best utilize the existing information from the GIS system, a step-by-step procedure was adopted to transfer the majority of information regarding the wastewater collection system from the GIS directly to the hydraulic model. For modeling purposes, it is not necessary to have every entity that is stored in the Towns GIS system to be integrated into the hydraulic model. However, it is desirable to include the larger size pipes and force mains to realistically represent the sewer system.

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-9

A query was run to tag all the pipes that were either force mains or gravity interceptors with diameters greater than 8 inches. However, some smaller sewer pipes in important segments of Carys sewer system were also included in the model to ensure that an accurate representation of the physical system was created.

Hydraulic models are constructed as links and nodes, with links connecting adjacent nodes. Nodes are typically manholes, and links are lines, such as gravity interceptors or force mains. Other model components, such as pumps and wastewater treatment plants, can be either links or nodes in MOUSE. A unique identification field was created for pipes, manholes, pump stations, and wastewater treatment facilities.

5.2.2

Gravity Interceptors

Once a network of sewer pipes was selected, an ESRI ARCVIEW AVENUETM program was written to uniquely select all the upstream manholes and downstream manholes for all the pipes selected in the model through the relationship between the manhole database and the sewer pipe database. The program also ensured the unique

presence of each manhole in the manhole database.

5.2.3

Nodes

Since the manhole database obtained from the Town did not have complete invert elevation information, another ESRI ARCVIEW AVENUETM program was written to specifically transfer the upstream and downstream invert elevation of each pipe, which are contained in the attribute table for the pipe database, to its corresponding manholes, or nodes. An extensive procedure was implemented to verify the compatibility between the manhole database and the pipe database.

5.2.4

Pump Stations and Force Mains

Each pump station in the Town of Cary was modeled as a link in the model, with a storage node as its wet well. Each pump station was set up with pump control levels

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-10

embedded.

The force mains were simulated in the same way as the gravity

interceptors, since the model software uses a solution technique that allows for the same treatment of both types of pipes. The nodes on force mains must be indicated to MOUSE, so that the program will not allow the nodes to lose water, as would typically happen at a node junction (which is normally a manhole). Pump stations with gravity line sizes below the scope of the model were not included. However, the flow was placed into the nearest pipe large enough to be included in the model.

5.2.5

Equalization/Storage Facilities

The Town of Cary does not have any equalization/storage facilities within its collection system. 5.2.6 Catchment Basins

Catchment delineation was done by considering both the hydrologic basin boundaries, and the source of the population data, which is Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) polygons. These TAZ polygons contain a geographically-referenced population estimate that is not tied to the boundaries of a Town or region, but rather to a small region of similar traffic patterns, called a TAZ. Since the primary source of flow for a sanitary sewer model is people and businesses, the population and employment numbers provided by the TAZ polygons were the primary information used to estimate flow rates from the catchments.

TAZ population estimates are divided into three types of populations: residential, commercial and industrial. However, these numbers are for the whole TAZ polygon, which can often be quite large, and spread out over multiple drainage areas. In order to accurately distribute the flows, the TAZ polygons were divided into separate regions by land use. This was performed using an existing land use shape file (obtained from the Town) for the current flows, and using the 1996 Land Use Plan for buildout (2025) flows. In between these years, an interpolation of the areas was used to allow the trends from existing to buildout land uses to slowly occur. With the land use distributed within the

TAZ, the different population types from the TAZ data were distributed into their

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-11

corresponding land use within the polygon. With the population fully distributed, the TAZs were then broken down by basin, so that each subtaz, or sub-catchment, contained area that would only flow to one portion of a gravity sewer line. Flow within these small drainage areas was assumed to be equally distributed and was apportioned accordingly.

In general, one subtaz was assigned to drain to one manhole node. In reality, the subtaz would actually drain from a network of smaller pipes into the larger pipes included in the model, sometimes entering the modeled pipes in several locations. However, this scenario closely approximates the physical system and is generally acceptable for sizing pipes and creating an approximate representation of reality. Nevertheless, in some situations with smaller pipes, this causes an unrealistic rise in water levels. In these situations, the subtaz flow was divided into two or more

manholes. The manholes that catch the flow from each subtaz were chosen by using a tool within ArcView that allows the closest manhole to the subtaz to be identified. Using this automatic tool, subtaz node numbers were assigned. Since this tool is blind to slope and pipe connections and only takes the closest node, the node data was hand checked. This process was performed using GIS tools to draw a line from the centroid of the subtaz polygon to the manhole that the subtaz was assumed to be draining to. With this graphical illustration of drainage nodes, the data was checked by visual inspection and evaluated for accuracy with the sewer line, topographical and basin data layers that were already available.

5.2.7

Model Buildup

After the data cleanup procedure was performed on the physical infrastructure represented in the model, each set of data (manhole, pipe, pump station) was converted into an ARCVIEW shapefile. Those shapefiles were subsequently imported into the MOUSE GISTM package and a final data file for MOUSE input was then generated. The only exception to this was the catchment basin data, which does not automatically transfer from MOUSE GISTM to MOUSE. For this data, a special utility from DHI had to be used which allowed for the transfer of this data. This tool was found to be somewhat

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-12

inflexible; so in many cases the raw data in the model was manipulated using spreadsheet programs (Microsoft Excel) and placed in the appropriate model data file.

While the greatest volume of data was directly input into the model through MOUSE GISTM, the data in the MOUSE model was still incomplete. Part of the invert information for some manholes or pipes was still missing. An extensive effort was put into entering data from the as-built drawings provided by the Town to fill in all the data necessary for the detailed hydraulic model. The data was manually input into the model, as required, to eliminate the data gaps.

The resulting existing collection system model contained a total of 2,304 pipes, 2,332 nodes, 18 pump stations, and two wastewater treatment plants. 5.3 Model Calibration

5.3.1

Measured Flows

As part of the infiltration/inflow analysis presented in Section 4, 19 flow meters were placed throughout the Town of Carys sewer system in the early part of 2001. Locations, dates and a summary of flow data collected from the flow meters are presented in Section 4. The data collected from these meters was gathered chiefly to calibrate the dry weather portion of the model. The wet weather portions of the data were not used, since infiltration and inflow is not explicitly simulated in the model. Instead, a global peaking factor, developed in Section 2, was used to approximate the infiltration and inflow that would occur during a large wet weather event. Since only small storms were recorded during the monitoring period, and because infiltration and inflow is a complicated process that is hard to exactly locate within the collection system, this method was used as a way to estimate the rainfall-induced flows in a conservative and efficient manner.

For various reasons, two of the flow meters did not record accurate data, and this data was not used. Meters 1 and 7 produced inconsistent data that was not reliable for model

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-13

calibration. Meter 1 did not have a long enough record to find a consistent profile, as the record only lasted two weeks, and appeared very inconsistent over the entire period. Meter 7 appeared to have collected reasonable data, but closer examination of the flows revealed that they were much lower than would be expected from the area served. It was surmised that somehow the meter was partially blocked, allowing it to collect only part of the flows from this line. For this reason, Meters 1 and 7 were not used for calibration of dry weather flows. It should be noted that Meter 8 was also not used in the infiltration/inflow analysis. However, while this meter did not produce consistently good data, it did produce enough data that appeared reasonable to construct a typical dry weather profile, and therefore was used for model calibration.

In order to compare the flows, a diurnal profile had to be developed for each of the metered basins. This is because the physical system produces flows that vary

throughout the day, and it is difficult to compare these flows with the daily average flows that the model produces without a diurnal profile. Therefore, from the measured flows, an approximate diurnal profile was developed, applied to the model in the appropriate locations, and then the adequacy of the flow projections and model infrastructure was determined.

The chief purpose of this calibration was to ensure that the model created flows for each subbasin that were near to what was actually occurring in the system. Problems could occur if there were unidentified cross connections in the infrastructure, if population estimates were inaccurate, or if some other error in the model data was introduced. Some changes in the model were generated as a result of this calibration process. The most noticeable was the addition of population in the areas tributary to the White Oak and Fieldstone Pump Stations. In order to properly calibrate the model, approximately 10,000 equivalent inhabitants, or inhabitants that contribute 70 gallons per day to the model flows, had to be added to the White Oak and Fieldstone basins in order to obtain reasonable flow profiles. This discrepancy is most likely explained by the buildup in population that occurred between the 1998 population estimate and the 2001 flow monitoring, as well as the generally low population estimates contained in some of the western TAZ data. For the future population estimates, these low values from the West

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-14

Basin data were modified by adding planned unit development (PUD) and activity center data, along with additional population in these two basins. The additions to the western TAZ data in the future model population estimates is discussed in more detail in Section 2. Some other updates came about as a result of the calibration. Most of these were in wet well configurations for the modeled pump stations, which were discovered to be inaccurate in the initial version of the model, and were updated after the pump station drawdown tests had been performed. With these changes in place, the model was ready for future flow inputs. Graphs illustrating modeled flows versus measured flows are included in Appendix G. These graphs showed that the model was sufficiently calibrated and was ready for use as a planning tool.

5.3.2

Flow Data Input to Model

Flow data inputs to the model came in three forms: inputs from Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs), inputs from Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and inputs from Activity Centers (ACs). The PUD and AC data were used to update the TAZ data in the South and West Basins of the Towns service area. The PUD and AC flows in the West Basin were based on the Town of Carys adopted Northwest Cary Area Plan (NWCAP).

TAZs

The TAZ data was obtained from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), and contained population and numbers of employees for defined areas (or polygons) of the Town, generally bordered by roads. The population and employee data for the TAZs were developed based on 1990 Census data. Values in each TAZ were provided for residential populations, and numbers of commercial and industrial employees.

In general, because the TAZ polygons were too large to be used for distributing flows for the collection system modeling, the TAZ polygons were divided into subtazs for estimating flows within the sewer basins. Each subtaz was created to cover an area that drained to one particular manhole in the model. The subtaz shapes were

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-15

configured to follow contours or outline the extents of a sanitary sewer basin. With the subtaz shapes created, the corresponding manhole that each subtaz drained to was added to the model.

The next step was to assign the three different types of population into the subtazs. With three different population types in each TAZ, the total population from the TAZ could not be equally distributed throughout the subtazs. Instead, the 1996 Land Use Plan and the existing land use were used to determine exactly where in each TAZ there existed a land use type that corresponded with the population type. The areas for each land use were estimated for 1998 using the existing land use data. The areas for buildout were estimated using the 1996 Land Use Plan. Areas for the intervening years were interpolated from this data.

After this process was completed, each population from the TAZ data was distributed by area into its corresponding land use within each TAZ. For example, assume a TAZ contained 300 commercial employees, 200 industrial employees and a residential population of 400. If a particular subtaz within this TAZ happened to have all of the industrial land use, then it would receive all the industrial population from the TAZ, even if it occupied only a small area. However, if this same subtaz had 50 percent of the

commercial area, and 25 percent of the residential area, it would be assigned 150 commercial employees and a residential population of 100.

Once the population was distributed, the total flow for each subtaz was determined using the per capita rates described in Section 2 (70 gpd for residential, 65 gpd for commercial and 12 gpd for industrial), and the corresponding population and/or number of employees. in the model. The TAZ flow data was then placed into the GIS flow shapefile for use

PUDs

PUD data was provided by the Town for the following PUDs: Amberly, Cary Park 1 and 2, Stonewater and Village at the Park. For each PUD, the Town provided maps and

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-16

other data that showed projected development within specific quadrants of the PUD. The Town also provided estimated unit flow rates for the various types of development within the PUDs. This was because the development data was in the form of numbers of dwelling units for different types of residential development and square footages for different types of commercial development. Therefore, the per capita flow rates

developed for use with the TAZ data could not be used for the PUDs. A GIS shapefile was then created for the defined quadrants within each PUD. Flows were assigned to each quadrant, and the name of each quadrant was placed into the GIS file, so that the flow data can be updated in the future, as needed.

With the PUD data incorporated in the GIS file, it was then necessary to modify the TAZ data. Since the TAZ data covered the entire service area of the Town, the TAZ data needed to be removed from the area covered by the PUDs in order to avoid overestimating flows. To accomplish this, GIS tools were used to clip the portions of the TAZ data covered by the PUDs from the flow shapefile. The population values for these clipped areas were estimated by assuming the populations were evenly distributed within each subtaz. This allowed the population within the clipped portion to be

estimated by multiplying the total population of the subtaz times the ratio of clipped area of the subtaz and the total area of the subtaz.

With the PUD data incorporated in the GIS shapefile, and the TAZ data modified to clip out the portions of the TAZs covered by the PUDs, the information was put into the model. First, each PUD quadrant was evaluated to determine the location of the gravity line which would convey its flow. Then, a manhole from the interceptor serving this gravity line (already entered into the model) was selected to receive this flow. This information was then entered into the GIS shapefile, and merged with the original TAZ shapefile, creating one file that contained all the necessary flow information for the model.

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-17

ACs

The AC flows and locations were based on information provided by the Town, as described in Section 2. Based on the way they were developed, the AC flows were intended to be added to the existing TAZ flows. Therefore, the AC data was added to

the TAZ and PUD data without subtracting or clipping out any flow information. Circular areas representative of each AC were added to the flow shapefile at the locations shown in Section 2. These circular areas were designed to have the same data

structure as the subtazs and PUD quadrants already included in the flow shapefile. After the appropriate manholes were selected to receive the flows from the ACs, the flow numbers were entered and the shapefile updated to include the AC flows.

Summary

After the division of the TAZ data into subtazs, and the addition of the PUD and AC data, one shapefile was developed that contained all the necessary flow data for all model years. This shapefile can be easily modified for the inclusion of future PUDs or other future changes. The data from this shapefile was exported to a database file, modified slightly to conform to the data structure followed by MOUSE, and then placed into the model. Total flows were selected as the input to the model, instead of

population, eliminating the need to enter or address different population types for the inputs to the model.

For sizing of pipelines, a peaking factor of 3.1 was applied to the annual average flows developed for input to the model. This peaking factor was developed from treatment plant flow data for the North and South Cary WRFs, as described in Section 2. For sizing of individual gravity interceptors, values for peaking factors in standard design manuals range from 2.0 to around 5.0, depending on the size of the drainage area served. As shown in Section 4 (Table 4-15) of this master plan, peaking factors for the Town of Cary based on the flow monitoring conducted for this master plan ranged from 1.45 to 6.93, with an average of 2.83. The Town of Cary in their Standard

Specifications for design of sanitary sewers requires the ratio of peak to average daily

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-18

flow to be 3.3. This value is based on the recommendation of the 1992 Wastewater System Report for the Town of Cary. This recommendation was also based on

treatment plant flow data. Based on a review of the above information, a peaking factor of 3.1 is recommended for use for collection system modeling in this master plan. However, the Town has indicated that it may continue to require the use of a peaking factor of 3.3 in its Standard Specifications.

5.4

Model Interface to Town of Carys Software

There are many ways for MOUSE to interface with the Towns software. Direct data links can be established from Excel, Access or other database files. In this way,

updated sewer information can be fed into the model, once a direct connection is established. The chief interface for GIS information is through MOUSE GIS, which works exclusively with ArcView 3.2. It is recommended that the Town purchase one copy of ArcView to go along with their copy of MOUSE. The total cost of MOUSE, plus this additional software, is still less than the modeling software that would work directly with MapInfo. Any future results produced by the model can be exported into MOUSE GIS, the shapefiles extracted, and then converted into the Towns MapInfo format using that programs universal translator. Also, updates to sewer line alignments and sizes are probably best approached through this interface. The model is fairly flexible in this regard. All database work performed for this master plan was done using a

spreadsheet program, and this program was used to manually adjust the raw data. This process could be continued, in lieu of an automatic updating scheme, which would require a raw data source that contained all the necessary information in a rigid format. Hazen and Sawyer staff are available to work with the Town in creating a direct data link to the model.

Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc

5-19

You might also like