GIS / Hydraulic Model Integration 2008 ESRI UC Will Allender, GISP Planning and Engineering Asset...

GIS / Hydraulic Model Integration2008 ESRI UC

Will Allender, GISPPlanning and EngineeringAsset Systems Planning

August 6, 2008

2

Agenda• Overview of Colorado Springs Utilities• Goals and objectives• Modeling types• Data requirements for modeling• System comparisons

• Data and process flow

• Lessons learned and next steps

GIS / InfoWater Integration

3

Overview and background• 4 service utility - 500 square miles• 122,000 water meters – 380,000 population• 208,000 water mains – 2000 miles• 22,000 hydrants – 66,000 valves• Water – Raw, potable and non-potable• AutoCAD-based model (H2ONet) InfoWater• ESRI/Librarian GIS SDE geodatabase


4

Goals and objectives• Overarching goal - Integrate GIS with InfoWater• Define target level of integration • Inter-system data element mapping• Inter-system data element comparison

• Analyze data quality between systems• Establish data improvement processes

• Reporting of quality improvements


5

Goals and objectives• Why integrate at all?

• Eliminate manual data entry – gain efficiencies• Cross-system update• Data availability to the enterprise• Eliminate spreadsheet data transfer• Allows for complete model• Provide connection to customer consumption• Data validation – feedback loop


6

Modeling types• Skeletonized/reduced vs. all-pipes model

• Skeletonized is a simplified view of the system• Improves model performance for large systems

• All-pipes allowable due to PC/IT improvements

• System model vs. daily model• System model includes existing and future

• Model is updated on-demand by the engineer

• Daily model is an operational model• Real time updates• Existing infrastructure


7

Data requirements for modelingGIS

Gravity mainFittingHydrantLine valveChange of conditionMeter stationControl valveStorage facilityPumpProduction well


Hydraulic modelPipes (links) Junctions (nodes) ValvesTanksPumpsReservoirs

8

Data requirements for modeling• Pipes (links)• Location (SHAPE field)• Modeling properties

• Length• Diameter• Roughness• Material type• Age (based on year installed)• Type (hydrant lateral vs. not)


9

Data requirements for modeling• Junctions (fittings, hydrants, line valves)• Location (x,y)• Modeling properties

• Demand (customer count and consumption)• Elevation• Valve type or fitting type• Age (general information)


10

Data requirements for modeling• Valves (specifically pressure control valves)• Location (x,y)• Modeling properties

• Elevation• Pressure settings• Age (general information)


11

Data requirements for modeling• Tanks• Location (x,y)• Modeling properties

• Diameter and volume• Base elevation• Min/max/initial water level• Age (general information)


12

Data requirements for modeling• Pumps• Location (x,y)• Modeling properties

• Type• Elevation• Horsepower• Design head and design flow• Age (general information)


13

Data requirements for modeling• Reservoirs (Wells at Colorado Springs Utilities)• Location (x,y)• Modeling properties

• Type• Head• Pattern (depending on pump)• Depth• Capacity


14

System comparisons

• Linear feature comparisons

• Point feature comparisons


15

Linear system comparison


• 2 versions of same pipe• 3 line segments• 4 vertices

16



17

Linear system comparison• Explode model pipes into line segments

• Convert segments to centroids (w/ attributes)

• Spatial join (limit20’)

• Compare attributes


18



19



20



21



22

Pipe roughness coefficient


Pipe diameter 1965 to present Before 1965

>= 30 inch 130 120

> 12 inch to 30 inch 125 110

<= 12 inch 115 100

• Rule-based

23

Pipe roughness


• Clustering in old part of city

• 3256 model pipes have roughness < 100

• Custom C-value from engineer will need to be preserved

24

Results of linear comparison• 5944 locations where pipes diameters do not match

(2.6%)• 1440 locations – diameter delta > 4”• 5101 locations where install date do not match• 2731 locations where date delta > 10 years• Hydraulic model material attribute does not support a

useful comparison• Roughness coefficient of 3256 old pipes is custom

• Only auto-update new pipes

• 1907 geometric network junctions



25

Junctions comparison• Hydrant - 12,546 in the model

• 98 as-built hydrants not co-located in GIS

• Elevation

Tanks• 41 total• Already cleaned up to 100% match

Pumps, valves and reservoirs• No significant comparable attributes• Small number – visit manually


Node comparison results

26

Elevation data comparison


27

Issues and next steps• Date fields – InfoWater stores dates as YYYY, GIS

stores dates as MM/DD/YYYY• All coded domain must be decoded for interpretation• LID or LinkID – to be determined and quite problematic• Diameters – search and replace all NULLs and 0’s with

valid values• Feature elevations – derive in GIS• Pump flow rates are entered in comment field –

inconsistent• Preserve custom model attribution• Demand allocation is a full project• Data QA is an “exploratory process”


28

Questions?Will Allender

• [email protected]

Special thanks to Penn State• Dr. Patrick M. Reed – Technical Advisor• Dr. Doug Miller – Academic Advisor


GIS / Hydraulic Model Integration 2008 ESRI UC Will Allender, GISP Planning and Engineering Asset...

Documents

Transcript of GIS / Hydraulic Model Integration 2008 ESRI UC Will Allender, GISP Planning and Engineering Asset...