My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council Work Session - 10/20/2020 - Special
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council Work Session
>
2020
>
Agenda - Council Work Session - 10/20/2020 - Special
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/17/2025 2:08:05 PM
Creation date
10/20/2020 3:38:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council Work Session
Document Title
Special
Document Date
10/20/2020
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
128
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
2.1 <br />2.2 <br />addling an additional pipe the model calibrates closely with the field data. The pipe along 147th <br />Ln. NW is a new 8" pipe, so it is believed that the pipe roughness coefficient used for the pipe is <br />accurate. Additionally, Test 10 was conducted on hydrants in a new development_ Previously, <br />this area was at a lower elevation than it is currently. This caused the model to not correlate well <br />with the field testing data. The elevations of the hydrants in the rnodel were adjusted to more <br />closely correlate with the field data, and as the pipe in the development is new, it is believed that <br />the pipe roughness coefficient used for the pip is accurate. <br />Once the computer water model was constructed and calibrated, the model was used to calculate <br />the operating conditions in the water distribution system. <br />Existing System Static Pressures <br />Water system pressure is primarily a function of elevation with sorne degree of pressure Foss as <br />water flows across the system. Static pressures throughout the distribution system as <br />determined by the water model are shown in Figures 1-3 in Appendix B for average day demand <br />(ADD), maximum day demand (MDD), and Peak Hour Demand. Low pressures generally occur <br />in areas where the elevations are relatively high compared to the overflow elevation or hydraulic <br />grade line (HGL) of the system. <br />As you can see in Figures 1-3 in Appendix B, the pressures across the system are generally <br />consistent, and are approximately the same between the three demand scenarios. All areas of <br />the system are within the range of 50 to 80 psi as you can see in Table 3. <br />Table 3 — Water System Static Pressures <br />C Average Day <br />111111.1 I Demand <br />Minimum Pressure (psi) <br />56 <br />Maximum Day <br />Demand <br />56 <br />Average Pressure (psi) <br />68.5 <br />68.1 <br />Maximum Pressure (psi) <br />Demand (gprin) <br />77 <br />1,221 <br />77 <br />3,330 <br />Peak Hour <br />Demand <br />56 <br />67.5 <br />76 <br />5,498 <br />All three demand scenarios were done with the towers at an HGL of 1.031 feet. No wells were <br />running during the model simulation. <br />Existing System 24-Hour Simulation <br />A 24-hour extended period simulation was run for average day demand (ADD) and maximum day <br />demand MDD to model how the existing system performs in terms of pressure, velocity, and tank <br />levels. System pressures are recommended to be in the range of 35 psi to 80 psi, and pipe <br />velocities are recommended to not exceed 5 feet per second. For an average day demand, 1.72 <br />MGD was assumed, and for maximum day demand, a maximum day peaking factor of 2.73 was <br />assumed to get a maximum day demand of 4.7 MGD. For both demand scenarios, diurnal <br />demand curves were used, and were developed by analyzing SCADA operation data <br />documenting system water tower levels, as well as using industry standards and previous <br />experience. These diurnal demand curves are shown in Figures 1 and 2, and were used for all <br />modeling simulations. The operating range of Tower 1 was assumed to be 6 feet where wells <br />would initially turn on when the HGL of Tower 1 went below 1,025 feet, and the wells would turn <br />FEASIBILITY STUDY -DRAFT <br />Page 4 <br />RAMSY 154354 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.