My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
05-27-25-WS
ArdenHills
>
Administration
>
City Council
>
City Council Packets
>
2020-2029
>
2025
>
05-27-25-WS
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/20/2025 6:32:45 PM
Creation date
6/20/2025 6:26:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
General
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
174
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Water Distribution System Hydraulic Model Calibration and System Evaluation Report <br /> Chapter 6 – Hydraulic Model Calibration <br /> December 2019 <br /> <br /> <br />P05049-2019-000 Page 20 <br /> <br />6.2.2 Extended Period Simulation (EPS) Calibration Results <br />The hydraulic model was further refined to match extended pressure testing results with the <br />hydraulic model during extended period simulations. Fine-tuning was accomplished through <br />adjustment of both pipe roughness coefficient factors and pump flow out of the Booster Station. <br />SCADA information from June 24th through July 1st, 2019 (system demands were about 0.9 <br />MGD) was used to adjust and calibrate the hydraulic model for extended period simulations. <br />Current demand criteria for evaluation of the existing system was a maximum day demand of <br />2.5 MGD, and an average day demand of 1.0 MGD as discussed in Chapter 4. <br />For the extended pressure tests, the simulated pressure readings were within 6 feet of the <br />observed pressure readings for 92 percent of the time for the selected calibration day. Again, <br />based on the criteria set forth above, these results are within the acceptable level of tolerance <br />for model calibration. There were 15 simulated pressure readings there were within 6 to 9 feet <br />of the observed pressure readings. Each of these 15 readings were located in the north pressure <br />zone. The differences are likely caused by imprecise measurement of the flow rate and pump <br />run times at the Booster Station. The observed pressure readings along with the simulated <br />pressure readings are shown in Appendix B. <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.