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 Cary’s 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

The different layers of XPSWMM are connected to the global data required for the simulation. The wastewater layer is used for generation of wastewater flows.5. It employs a variable time step technique. but also includes many of its own proprietary features. The data sharing function with ESRI’s ArcView is also very easy to use.doc 5-2 . A Global Database contains design and measured storm events. a stormwater layer. FL. 5. where steeply rising hydrographs require model changes within seconds or fractions of a second. pollutant data and other data required to run XPSWMM. including storage/treatment for water quality routing.1. located in Waterbury. XPSWMM utilizes USEPA’s Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) algorithm as its numerical engine. infiltration data. It can efficiently interface with AutoCAD (from AutoDesk) and ArcView (from Environmental System Research Institute (ESRI)). it can capture a “snap-shot” in the simulated system over a given time period. This is especially important in urban systems. CT.1. interconnected pond analysis. It alleviates the problems of using a matrix solution. XPSWMM has three layers.1 SewerCAD Although SewerCAD from Haestad Methods. and can use smaller or larger time steps when appropriate. A DXF or DWG file can be imported into the model and used as the background. The stormwater layer is used for hydrology and water quality generation. is not a true dynamic model. open and closed conduit flow analysis.2 XPSWMM XPSWMM was originally developed by XP Software in Tampa. The users can also utilize AutoCAD native commands (like MOVE and ERASE) in order to manipulate the system. Typical XPSWMM applications include predicting combined sewer overflows (CSOs) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). a wastewater layer and a hydro-dynamic layer. Shapefiles can be directly exported into GIS and be manipulated using GIS software. The hydro-dynamic layer is used for the hydraulic simulation of both open and closed conduit wastewater or stormwater systems. major/minor flow Reports\30508-002\Section 5.

1. are precisely simulated. includes efficient boundary data storage and retrieval facilities.doc 5-3 . MOUSE The databases are independent of the operating system.1 MOUSE MOUSE (Modeling Of Urban Sewer). 5.1. boundary data can be transferred from one computer to another and used in different applications. design. management and operation of both simple and complex pipe networks. used as a vertical extension of the closed pipe cross-section. which adapts to the local flow conditions. design of new development.analysis. which can occur in pipes ranging from small-diameter collectors. is a dynamic user-friendly model for the analysis.3. MOUSE is operated through a Windows-based interactive dialogue system. Free surface and Reports\30508-002\Section 5. Flow phenomena. interceptors affected by varying outlet water levels. and analysis of existing stormwater and wastewater collection systems. from the Danish Hydraulic Institute.3 MIKE Products 5. such as backwater effects and surcharges. Venant). 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. It provides a complete and effective working environment for sophisticated stormwater and wastewater collection system engineering. and it provides efficient and accurate solutions in multiple connected branched and looped pipe networks. free surface flow equations (St. The implemented algorithm has a self-adapting time step. to low-lying. Pressurized flow computations are facilitated through the implementation of a narrow slot. often pressurized. so. finite difference numerical solution of the basic one dimensional. Both subcritical and supercritical flows are treated by means of the same numerical scheme. The computational scheme is applicable to vertically homogeneous flow conditions. The computations are founded on an implicit.

The user interface for MIKE SWMM was developed from DHI’s state-of-the-art MOUSE user interface. Data can be digitized and viewed with background images and edited with the same graphical editors that are part of DHI’s MOUSE system. The Network Editor allows the user to extract data from a number of different asset management systems. CSO points and volumes and exceedances of critical levels can quickly be identified.1.pressurized flows are thus described within the same basic algorithm. Data can also be entered and edited through carefully designed and flexible database forms. 5. The decisions made by the program in the simplification process are based on user-specified criteria. By direct access to the asset management databases. These different editors or views of the same information are Reports\30508-002\Section 5.2 MIKE SWMM MIKE SWMM. 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. is the product of a collaborative effort of DHI and Camp. It is built around USEPA’s SWMM non-proprietary mathematical model.3. which include scrollable spreadsheet-like sections for efficient editing of tabulated data. The Results Presentation allows the user to present results from the fully dynamic MOUSE simulations in combination with other GIS data. GIS links. which can be replayed if the user wants to repeat the process. and finally to store the data as a model for further analysis in MOUSE.. to condense the network automatically while still maintaining consistency in the description of the physical system. Dresser and McKee (CDM). which ensures a smooth and stable transition in all situations. e. after changes are made in the asset management system. SWMM is widely recognized and accepted in the industry and the regulatory community.doc 5-4 .g. and add-on modules. also from the Danish Hydraulic Institute. MOUSE GIS works in the ArcView environment and consists of two parts: the Network Editor and the Results Presentation. All changes are recorded on a separate file.

By using the industry standard (Microsoft Jet) database engine. It creates an overly conservative estimate of peak flows and does not accurately represent the system hydraulics. SewerCAD is inherently a static model. as used in Microsoft Access. MOUSE and Reports\30508-002\Section 5. This powerful numerical engine provides automatic time-stepping and implicit numerical solutions to optimize runtime and to ensure mathematical stability. so that changes introduced through one editor are automatically and instantly updated in the other views. Most dynamic models (SWMM. along with rapid access to full on-line documentation that is integrated within the help system. InfoWorks incorporates full interactive views of 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. located in the United Kingdom.dynamically linked. The software contains comprehensive diagnostic error checking and warning. accurate and stable modeling of the key elements of separate or combined sewer systems. open channel.4 InfoWorks (HydroWorks) InfoWorks (HydroWorks) was developed by Wallingford Software. 5.1. Animated presentation of the results in Geographical Plan. using geographical plan views. InfoWorks provides the ability to review current and historical model network versions and attribute data. It utilizes a new “Time Series” simulation engine. Long Section and three dimensional (3D) junction views is standard. together with results reporting and flood frequency analysis using tables and graphs. trunk sewers. which allows planners and engineers to predict environmental impacts following a rainfall event by providing fast. long sections. 5. complex pipe connections and complex ancillary structures.doc 5-5 . The software incorporates full solution modeling of backwater effects and reverse flows.1.5 Model Selection Conclusions and Recommendations As opposed to the three other modeling software packages. Access to the underlying data is available from any graphical or geographical view. spreadsheets and time-varying graphical data.

0000 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 TIME (HOURS) Reports\30508-002\Section 5. they still may inherently pose potential stability problems in their computational schemes. Venant equations to provide efficient and The major difference among the dynamic accurate solutions for branched networks. solve the St.doc 5-6 . while SWMM uses an explicit solution technique of the finite difference method. Venant equations.InfoWorks TM ).00 200. Resolving the numerical instabilities is time consuming and expensive. Figure 5-1 Town of Cary Example of SWMM Engine Instability Therefore. models is the solution technique or numeric method used to solve the St. on the other hand. Although MIKE SWMM and XPSWMM have made some improvements.00 Model Simulation Output Capacity 329.00 Actual Capacity 118 cfs . 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. packages is not recommended. which would result in a significant over-design of the sewer system if those errors were not recognized.00 Evidence of Engine Resulting Instability in Over-Design Sewer Collection of System 100. the collaborative model has a higher probability of inheriting errors from these different program modules. use of either of these software 400. As additional links and interfaces are added. Both MOUSE and InfoWorks TM use an implicit solution technique. as shown in Figure 5-1. 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.38 cfs 300.

is approximately half the cost of the InfoWorks software package.Both InfoWorksTM and MOUSE. GIS interface and an unlimited number of pipes. on the other hand. MOUSE offers a government discount of 20% off its listed price when purchased by the Town of Cary. and their GIS integration capability. InfoWorks and MOUSE appear to stand out from the other software packages. Table 5-1 shows a matrix comparing the differences among the dynamic sewer models evaluated. MOUSE from DHI is the recommended hydraulic modeling software package for the Town’s wastewater collection system master plan. the data exchange capability between the MapInfo and ArcView files does not appear to be a problem. the MOUSE software package. both software packages are competitive in this regard. database and GIS integration capability. user-friendly graphical interface. However. which only allows the use of 2. Reports\30508-002\Section 5. and competitive price. InfoWorks will work directly with MapInfo for mapping purpose. It significantly enhances the ability to identify possible errors in model construction.doc 5-7 . including real-time control. Due to its stable dynamic numerical engine. whereas MOUSE is currently integrating with the GIS package ArcView from ESRI.000 pipes. Additionally. The Town of Cary is currently using MapInfo software in their GIS department. Both InfoWorks and MOUSE appear to be excellent choices for the Town. With regard to the user-friendly graphical interfaces provided by all the software. Therefore. After communication with personnel in the Town’s GIS department. and reduces the labor cost associated with the debugging of the model. have a more stable model engine with a self “debugging” mechanism built-in.

395 $20.990 $12.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 ü ü ü ü ü ü ü MIKE SWMM (DHI) ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü MOUSE (DHI) ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü InfoWorks ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü ü $41.000 Reports\30508-002\Section 5.000 $13.doc 5-8 .

1 General Description The Town of Cary maintains a comprehensive GIS system for its wastewater collection system.5.doc 5-9 . However. To efficiently simulate the system and best utilize the existing information from the GIS system. Reports\30508-002\Section 5. The total number of manholes is 15.2 Model Development 5. 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. with diameters ranging from 4 inches to 54 inches. Complete information was not available for every pipe and manhole. and pumping rate of each pump station. it is desirable to include the larger size pipes and force mains to realistically represent the sewer system. It includes 15. 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.2.520 sewer pipes. it is not necessary to have every entity that is stored in the Town’s GIS system to be integrated into the hydraulic model. pump control levels.529. For modeling purposes. the construction of the dynamic hydraulic model necessitated obtaining information regarding the wet well dimensions. In addition. There are 29 pump stations and two wastewater treatment plants (water reclamation facilities). which were provided by Town staff.

2. However. Other model components. 5.2.A query was run to tag all the pipes that were either force mains or gravity interceptors with diameters greater than 8 inches. manholes.doc 5-10 . which are contained in the attribute table for the pipe database. 5. with a storage node as its wet well. and links are lines. another ESRI ARCVIEW AVENUETM program was written to specifically transfer the upstream and downstream invert elevation of each pipe. Each pump station was set up with pump control levels Reports\30508-002\Section 5. The program also ensured the unique presence of each manhole in the manhole database.2 Gravity Interceptors Once a network of sewer pipes was selected. pump stations. and wastewater treatment facilities. 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. 5. some smaller sewer pipes in important segments of Cary’s sewer system were also included in the model to ensure that an accurate representation of the physical system was created.3 Nodes Since the manhole database obtained from the Town did not have complete invert elevation information. Hydraulic models are constructed as links and nodes. or nodes. to its corresponding manholes. such as pumps and wastewater treatment plants. A unique identification field was created for pipes. such as gravity interceptors or force mains. can be either links or nodes in MOUSE.4 Pump Stations and Force Mains Each pump station in the Town of Cary was modeled as a link in the model.2. with links connecting adjacent nodes. Nodes are typically manholes. An extensive procedure was implemented to verify the compatibility between the manhole database and the pipe database.

embedded. the different population types from the TAZ data were distributed into their Reports\30508-002\Section 5. an interpolation of the areas was used to allow the trends from existing to buildout land uses to slowly occur. which is Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) polygons. so that the program will not allow the nodes to lose water. In between these years. Since the primary source of flow for a sanitary sewer model is people and businesses. the flow was placed into the nearest pipe large enough to be included in the model. 5. Pump stations with gravity line sizes below the scope of the model were not included.doc 5-11 . With the land use distributed within the TAZ. The nodes on force mains must be indicated to MOUSE. which can often be quite large. commercial and industrial. but rather to a small region of similar traffic patterns. These TAZ polygons contain a geographically-referenced population estimate that is not tied to the boundaries of a Town or region. called a TAZ. This was performed using an existing land use shape file (obtained from the Town) for the current flows. 5. the population and employment numbers provided by the TAZ polygons were the primary information used to estimate flow rates from the catchments. and spread out over multiple drainage areas. However. 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. these numbers are for the whole TAZ polygon.5 Equalization/Storage Facilities The Town of Cary does not have any equalization/storage facilities within its collection system. the TAZ polygons were divided into separate regions by land use. In order to accurately distribute the flows.2.2. However.6 Catchment Basins Catchment delineation was done by considering both the hydrologic basin boundaries. and the source of the population data. and using the 1996 Land Use Plan for buildout (2025) flows. TAZ population estimates are divided into three types of populations: residential. as would typically happen at a node junction (which is normally a manhole).

one subtaz was assigned to drain to one manhole node. the subtaz flow was divided into two or more manholes. contained area that would only flow to one portion of a gravity sewer line. topographical and basin data layers that were already available. In these situations. Since this tool is blind to slope and pipe connections and only takes the closest node. a special utility from DHI had to be used which allowed for the transfer of this data. Nevertheless. so that each “subtaz.doc 5-12 . each set of data (manhole.” or sub-catchment.2.corresponding land use within the polygon. subtaz node numbers were assigned. 5. Those shapefiles were subsequently imported into the MOUSE GISTM package and a final data file for MOUSE input was then generated. With this graphical illustration of drainage nodes. In general. this scenario closely approximates the physical system and is generally acceptable for sizing pipes and creating an approximate representation of reality. Flow within these small drainage areas was assumed to be equally distributed and was apportioned accordingly. With the population fully distributed. The only exception to this was the catchment basin data. pump station) was converted into an ARCVIEW shapefile. the subtaz would actually drain from a network of smaller pipes into the larger pipes included in the model. Using this automatic tool. the node data was hand checked. pipe. However. the data was checked by visual inspection and evaluated for accuracy with the sewer line. this causes an unrealistic rise in water levels. 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. This tool was found to be somewhat Reports\30508-002\Section 5. sometimes entering the modeled pipes in several locations. which does not automatically transfer from MOUSE GISTM to MOUSE. in some situations with smaller pipes.7 Model Buildup After the data cleanup procedure was performed on the physical infrastructure represented in the model. For this data. In reality. the TAZs were then broken down by basin. 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.

two of the flow meters did not record accurate data.304 pipes.doc 5-13 . Part of the invert information for some manholes or pipes was still missing. dates and a summary of flow data collected from the flow meters are presented in Section 4. 2. The wet weather portions of the data were not used. Meters 1 and 7 produced inconsistent data that was not reliable for model Reports\30508-002\Section 5. and this data was not used. The data was manually input into the model. Since only small storms were recorded during the monitoring period. developed in Section 2. The data collected from these meters was gathered chiefly to calibrate the dry weather portion of the model. The resulting existing collection system model contained a total of 2. and because infiltration and inflow is a complicated process that is hard to exactly locate within the collection system. Locations.3 Model Calibration 5.332 nodes. this method was used as a way to estimate the rainfall-induced flows in a conservative and efficient manner. 5. and two wastewater treatment plants. as required. a global peaking factor.inflexible. 18 pump stations.1 Measured Flows As part of the infiltration/inflow analysis presented in Section 4. since infiltration and inflow is not explicitly simulated in the model. 19 flow meters were placed throughout the Town of Cary’s sewer system in the early part of 2001. For various reasons. 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 in the MOUSE model was still incomplete. While the greatest volume of data was directly input into the model through MOUSE GISTM.3. Instead. to eliminate the data gaps. 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. was used to approximate the infiltration and inflow that would occur during a large wet weather event.

and it is difficult to compare these flows with the daily average flows that the model produces without a diurnal profile. For the future population estimates.calibration.000 “equivalent inhabitants”. Therefore. had to be added to the White Oak and Fieldstone basins in order to obtain reasonable flow profiles. However. as the record only lasted two weeks. or inhabitants that contribute 70 gallons per day to the model flows. 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. and therefore was used for model calibration. as well as the generally low population estimates contained in some of the western TAZ data. For this reason. if population estimates were inaccurate. Meter 1 did not have a long enough record to find a consistent profile. 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 then the adequacy of the flow projections and model infrastructure was determined. Problems could occur if there were unidentified cross connections in the infrastructure. allowing it to collect only part of the flows from this line. This is because the physical system produces flows that vary throughout the day. approximately 10. but closer examination of the flows revealed that they were much lower than would be expected from the area served. In order to compare the flows. Meters 1 and 7 were not used for calibration of dry weather flows. applied to the model in the appropriate locations. or if some other error in the model data was introduced. The most noticeable was the addition of population in the areas tributary to the White Oak and Fieldstone Pump Stations. from the measured flows. Some changes in the model were generated as a result of this calibration process. It should be noted that Meter 8 was also not used in the infiltration/inflow analysis. and appeared very inconsistent over the entire period. This discrepancy is most likely explained by the buildup in population that occurred between the 1998 population estimate and the 2001 flow monitoring. a diurnal profile had to be developed for each of the metered basins. It was surmised that somehow the meter was partially blocked. these low values from the West Reports\30508-002\Section 5.doc 5-14 . In order to properly calibrate the model. Meter 7 appeared to have collected reasonable data. an approximate diurnal profile was developed.

In general. The subtaz shapes were Reports\30508-002\Section 5. generally bordered by roads. The population and employee data for the TAZs were developed based on 1990 Census data. and numbers of commercial and industrial employees. Some other updates came about as a result of the calibration. The PUD and AC flows in the West Basin were based on the Town of Cary’s adopted Northwest Cary Area Plan (NWCAP). and contained population and numbers of employees for defined areas (or polygons) of the Town. which were discovered to be inaccurate in the initial version of the model. Each subtaz was created to cover an area that drained to one particular manhole in the model. Most of these were in wet well configurations for the modeled pump stations.doc 5-15 . The additions to the western TAZ data in the future model population estimates is discussed in more detail in Section 2. These graphs showed that the model was sufficiently calibrated and was ready for use as a planning tool. because the TAZ polygons were too large to be used for distributing flows for the collection system modeling. Values in each TAZ were provided for residential populations.Basin data were modified by adding planned unit development (PUD) and activity center data. inputs from Planned Unit Developments (PUDs) and inputs from Activity Centers (ACs). With these changes in place. along with additional population in these two basins. 5.2 Flow Data Input to Model Flow data inputs to the model came in three forms: inputs from Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZs). TAZs The TAZ data was obtained from the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO). and were updated after the pump station drawdown tests had been performed. Graphs illustrating modeled flows versus measured flows are included in Appendix G. The PUD and AC data were used to update the TAZ data in the South and West Basins of the Town’s service area. the model was ready for future flow inputs. the TAZ polygons were divided into “subtazs” for estimating flows within the sewer basins.3.

After this process was completed. if this same subtaz had 50 percent of the commercial area. and the corresponding population and/or number of employees. each population from the TAZ data was distributed by area into its corresponding land use within each TAZ. Once the population was distributed. The areas for buildout were estimated using the 1996 Land Use Plan. the Town provided maps and Reports\30508-002\Section 5. However. For each PUD.doc 5-16 . even if it occupied only a small area. With the subtaz shapes created. Instead. The areas for each land use were estimated for 1998 using the existing land use data. With three different population types in each TAZ. it would be assigned 150 commercial employees and a residential population of 100. Areas for the intervening years were interpolated from this data. 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. 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 total flow for each subtaz was determined using the per capita rates described in Section 2 (70 gpd for residential. and 25 percent of the residential area. the corresponding manhole that each subtaz drained to was added to the model. the total population from the TAZ could not be equally distributed throughout the subtazs. 200 industrial employees and a residential population of 400. Stonewater and Village at the Park. Cary Park 1 and 2. in the model.configured to follow contours or outline the extents of a sanitary sewer basin. For example. 65 gpd for commercial and 12 gpd for industrial). The next step was to assign the three different types of population into the subtazs. then it would receive all the industrial population from the TAZ. If a particular subtaz within this TAZ happened to have all of the industrial land use. assume a TAZ contained 300 commercial employees.

With the PUD data incorporated in the GIS file. creating one file that contained all the necessary flow information for the model.other data that showed projected development within specific quadrants of the PUD. and the name of each quadrant was placed into the GIS file. GIS tools were used to clip the portions of the TAZ data covered by the PUDs from the flow shapefile. and merged with the original TAZ shapefile. Since the TAZ data covered the entire service area of the Town. The Town also provided estimated unit flow rates for the various types of development within the PUDs. First. the information was put into the model. To accomplish this. 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. 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. and the TAZ data modified to clip out the portions of the TAZs covered by the PUDs. This information was then entered into the GIS shapefile. so that the flow data can be updated in the future. the per capita flow rates developed for use with the TAZ data could not be used for the PUDs. each PUD quadrant was evaluated to determine the location of the gravity line which would convey its flow. the TAZ data needed to be removed from the area covered by the PUDs in order to avoid overestimating flows. Reports\30508-002\Section 5. Flows were assigned to each quadrant. A GIS shapefile was then created for the defined quadrants within each PUD. it was then necessary to modify the TAZ data. a manhole from the interceptor serving this gravity line (already entered into the model) was selected to receive this flow.doc 5-17 . With the PUD data incorporated in the GIS shapefile. Therefore. as needed. The population values for these clipped areas were estimated by assuming the populations were evenly distributed within each subtaz. Then.

93. peaking factors for the Town of Cary based on the flow monitoring conducted for this master plan ranged from 1. eliminating the need to enter or address different population types for the inputs to the model. For sizing of pipelines. After the appropriate manholes were selected to receive the flows from the ACs. Based on the way they were developed. modified slightly to conform to the data structure followed by MOUSE. For sizing of individual gravity interceptors.83. Circular areas representative of each AC were added to the flow shapefile at the locations shown in Section 2. Therefore.ACs The AC flows and locations were based on information provided by the Town.doc 5-18 .0 to around 5. depending on the size of the drainage area served. as described in Section 2. as described in Section 2. instead of population. This shapefile can be easily modified for the inclusion of future PUDs or other future changes. the AC flows were intended to be added to the existing TAZ flows. and then placed into the model. Summary After the division of the TAZ data into subtazs. the AC data was added to the TAZ and PUD data without subtracting or clipping out any flow information.0. a peaking factor of 3.45 to 6. These circular areas were designed to have the same data structure as the subtazs and PUD quadrants already included in the flow shapefile. one shapefile was developed that contained all the necessary flow data for all model years. values for peaking factors in standard design manuals range from 2. This peaking factor was developed from treatment plant flow data for the North and South Cary WRFs. 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 5.1 was applied to the annual average flows developed for input to the model. As shown in Section 4 (Table 4-15) of this master plan. The data from this shapefile was exported to a database file. and the addition of the PUD and AC data. Total flows were selected as the input to the model. with an average of 2. the flow numbers were entered and the shapefile updated to include the AC flows.

doc 5-19 . Direct data links can be established from Excel. which works exclusively with ArcView 3.3 in its Standard Specifications. Hazen and Sawyer staff are available to work with the Town in creating a direct data link to the model. plus this additional software. is still less than the modeling software that would work directly with MapInfo. once a direct connection is established. the Town has indicated that it may continue to require the use of a peaking factor of 3. and this program was used to manually adjust the raw data. updates to sewer line alignments and sizes are probably best approached through this interface. This recommendation was also based on treatment plant flow data. 5. Also. This process could be continued. All database work performed for this master plan was done using a spreadsheet program. In this way. However. in lieu of an automatic updating scheme. It is recommended that the Town purchase one copy of ArcView to go along with their copy of MOUSE.flow to be 3. Any future results produced by the model can be exported into MOUSE GIS.2. Access or other database files. The total cost of MOUSE. The model is fairly flexible in this regard.1 is recommended for use for collection system modeling in this master plan. and then converted into the Town’s MapInfo format using that program’s universal translator. This value is based on the recommendation of the 1992 Wastewater System Report for the Town of Cary. which would require a raw data source that contained all the necessary information in a rigid format.4 Model Interface to Town of Cary’s Software There are many ways for MOUSE to interface with the Town’s software. a peaking factor of 3. updated sewer information can be fed into the model. the shapefiles extracted. Based on a review of the above information. The chief interface for GIS information is through MOUSE GIS. Reports\30508-002\Section 5.3.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful