Latest Contributions by MartinPflanz

May be a bit past it at this point, maybe give the 13 miles of virtual pipe all tank sites a second glance.  At most I'd estimate in a single site design, including 1 riser pipe going up center of tank bas 75' in the air (elevated tank), each site having no more than 300 ft under/through or up to an elevated tank volume.  13 mi would ~roughly mean 225 tank site's worth of pipe.  If the 13 miles also includes process piping at treatment plants and facilities then that starts certainly can add up to 13 mi.  Agree with earlier poster, layout would vary by design, some pipes stop at face of tank, some run up to the bottom of an elevated tank, just depends on site design and layout. ... View more

Cross-posting due similar topics related to fire-hydrant flow estimates.  https://community.esri.com/t5/arcgis-survey123-questions/calculation-for-hydrant-flow-rate/m-p/1164551 Given that the flow leaving a hydrant is turbulent rather than laminar, it could be anticipated that there would be substantial variation in the calculation results per site.  Not to mention determining/deciding where to actually measure the L when a hydrant spray/spread hits the ground could vary based on observer methods.  If such an approximated result aligns with the data needing to be recorded, a timed flow x estimated flowrate may provide a rapid and standardized approximation (simple calculation).  If accuracy is required for the data entry, a temporary flow meter would be ideal.   ... View more

When running the referenced calculation above, keep in mind a few variables that may impact results the hydrants being tested may vary across the network (old, new, size and type varies etc), as would the diameter inside of the hydrant based on each different type, that could impact the results in the equation, and lead to more complex drop downs etc. as a hydrant is flowed, pressure in the water network (P) likely decreases, there by reducing the Q that the formula is solving form.  Thus if flow varies/decreases, which total volume would you seek to have entered/recorded? To not get too worried about the detail if you don't need to, how accurate of a number do you need to report?  I have seen everything from some utilities putting flow meters on the hydrant to measure the flow during tests (ideal but takes time and requires flow meters), all the way to to stop-stop-watching the flow event and assuming a flow rate (i.e. 500gpm or some avg based on the size of hydrant).  Then multiply by the minutes flowed to arrive at the total volume flushed.  If you have time, it could be worth confirming accuracy of calculation against the accuracy of the number you need to have entered:  does the additional level of effort provide value.    ... View more

See reply via this thread in the Water Utilities community  ... View more

John, Welcome to the fun world of hydraulic modeling!  It's great for puzzle solver-minds; never ending. If you are using ArcMap or ArcGIS Pro, for this type of analysis, there are a handful of modeling software's available in the water modeling industry that operate within Esri software.  One of our Esri partners, Innovyze, along with one of Esri's solution engineers, Jason Channin, gave a good presentation on a hydraulic modeling tool working inside ArcGIS here.  Outside of modeling software itself, there is quite a lot that goes on in a water network.  You may find this video useful - it covers how water systems function (by one of my favorite youtuber channels, Practical Engineering).  Feel free to reply with what you are trying to solve/answer, and the Geonet community here will be glad to help you along the journey. Respectfully, Martin ... View more

Travis, You are embarking on a subtly complex and fun numerical puzzle to solve.  It may help to take into consideration the details on the variables at play in the water network when solving for an unknown, such water loss.   Customer Meter data - Inspect the duration over which the metered flow is averaged.  Volume through the meter divided by number of days / hours / minutes total.  i.e. 200 gallons per day or 6000 gal/month does not translate to a reality of 8 gallons used at a constant rate every hour every day, but rather some peaking (see diurnal curve) has occurred during each unique day.  To improve accuracy here, one would need instantaneous meter read at all meters to have a good handle on what was actually "metered" at a point in time. Master Meter data - same approach as above, instantaneous vs averaged, then knowing, since water is incompressible, do the measurement read clock times for the master meter line up with the customer meters? Also, during the master meter sample data period, were any unknowns of water demand occurring?  Was the water department flushing any hydrants?  Was the fire department fighting a fire?  Was a contractor drawing water off to fill a tanker truck through a construction meter? Was there any city/town unmetered irrigation systems that were on at the time? (these could contribute to the overall water loss inadvertently) Deciphering Types of Water Loss sources - water loss or unmetered unknown water can be a result of several factors:  meter inaccuracy (+/-5% depending on meters, each meter may be at a different age or accuracy, traditional leaks through pipe cracks, illegal taps, leak past a valve that is not fully seated, very low continuous flow through a meter (aka small toilet leak).  AWWA M36 WATER AUDITS AND LOSS CONTROL PROGRAMS, FOURTH EDITION is a great reference on water loss. Leak Behavior - a leak through a pipe crack, is at its basic behavior, just water exiting an orifice which thankfully has a defined equation (search fluid exit orifice loss equation).  To solve for the flow leaving an orifice, one needs pressure (which varies based on where and when in the network) as well as size and type of the orifice itself.  So you can see there may need to be some assumptions made based on pressure at each point in the network and size of leak to measure what the water loss is (assuming other inaccuracies such as meter accuracy and interconnects with the system have been taken out of the picture).  Sum this up by the thought that as pressure increases, water loss flowrate increases to a threshold where the orifice becomes a bottleneck.   Leak Location & Quantify - if the instantaneous delta between master meter and all customer meters was known, and making an assumption that the difference is only related to water loss through one or more cracks in a pipe (not other reasons), the number of leaks and location of leaks would remain unknown without further investigation (sonic devices etc fun toys see in action!) Interconnections - unmetered interconnections in the network such tees or open valves between metered areas create a path where unmetered water can flow in or out of that network, rendering all of the effort to focus on improving accuracy of any of the above variables for not With all of these variables at play it, it can end up being a complex task to calculate by hand.  I have seen many water utilities gain understanding of their water loss by investing time in a well calibrated hydraulic model.  Ideally arriving a a model that, run over an extended period of time, closely matches real word conditions.  At that point, some of today's hydraulic modeling software's, given enough known variables can solve for plausible and potential leak regions.  Keep in mind even hydraulic model results can have many unique plausible scenarios that could mathematically match observed pressure and flow rate (ie. is it 2 large leaks or 6 smaller leaks near by).   Typically I have seen water utilities most effective when they tackle water loss through a combination of approaches:  Proactive valve operation programs (to improve resiliency when leaks occur and minimize downtime/water loss) Proactive water loss education programs with the public (spot a leak -> report a leak) Meter replacement programs (to improve accuracy on the customer delivery points themselves) Using a well calibrated hydraulic model to reliably predict system behavior and identify areas to investigate Esri has many well defined solution to support field operations, so I encourage you to check out the GIS for Water Utilities page and scroll down to the Business Solutions section and check it out. Talk again soon! Martin  ... View more

Jassi, You asked a lot of good questions in one sentence, sometimes complex questions require some complex and likely more thorough research.  To understand more on groundwater modeling and recharge you may want to check out this lecture What you need to know and this lecture on Groundwater Modeling (using MODFLOW).   Regards, Martin ... View more

Robert, you may want to post your question in Water Utilities given type of network you are working with, also here is a good blog summarizing the changes in 2.6 related to the Utility Network  ... View more

Hello, you may also want to post this question in theWater Utilities  community forum. ... View more

Hello, you may want to post this question in the Water Utilities  or https://community.esri.com/community/utility-network  community forum. ... View more

As a suggestion, you may want to post this question in the Water Utilities community: https://community.esri.com/community/water-utilities  ... View more

Arshad, if you are looking at raw material costs, then that cost increases fairly predictably based on market costs for that material.  For each pipe type and pipe class there would be unique cost tables (this changes fairly often based on market costs for fuel etc).  As a suggestion, if you are looking at actual total construction cost, beyond just material costs, you may want to consider the construction environment - rural vs high density, mid etc - greater complexity and interaction with utilities, pavement etc, increases cost.  This could be derived by a X factor for the type of construction complexity for a particular area (polygon).   ... View more

Ryan, The quest for a 1:1 match to the real-world - it has trade offs as you just mentioned (cleaning up data for 21K points!) yes that would be an adventure.  I will make a generalization from the sewer modeling perspective, that for every effort to step closer to the real-world with a virtual model, there is a required effort and a particular return that you should evaluate (is the improved precision worth the effort?).  In my experience, for most sewer network modeling cases, nearest pipe or nearest node would suffice - when you add in the inflow and infiltration (this a > value) along pipe lengths required when sizing sewer networks for peak flow, you will see even less difference between the 3 methods you could choose from.  Also the noise or local miss-assignment from one node or pipe to another near-by is offset by load from another few parcels that a node picks up.  If you "zoom out" to a particular neighborhood, whether you assigned sewer loading using the manual match up method, auto-nearest node, or auto-nearest pipe, often there is no difference in flow leaving in neighborhood sewer mains, aka your choice at the microscopic level can become nearly indistinguishable at the mid and macro level - re: not worth tweaking 21K points.  Then there is that whole magic number trust of where the actual loading of sewer data came from - estimated conversion from water meter data or a mysterious coefficient based on persons per household  - hope you get my point... the core data sanitary sewer loading is already based on generalized assumptions.    Beyond the tools Mike mentioned, there are also modern Sewer Network Modeling tools, that can provide over half a dozen ways to do the work for you and automagically load manholes with sanitary sewer loads, by population, area, meter connections etc, so it may be best to identify when a more precise loading may be needed or not - use the right tool for the purpose.  Test:   sizing pipes in a neighborhood for peak wet weather flows? work towards 1:1 only if there is value doing so working on a master plan exhibit or general visual of the dry weather sanitary sewer? 1:1 not needed, KISS rule ... View more

Tolga - There are a few parts to the puzzle that I am wondering if they may be key to answering your question - depends on what the main goal is in your task.  Storm events in a watershed follow a volumetric wave, somewhat bell shaped curve - a hyetograph - so at any given time the flow leaving one stream may to a connecting point may have a different peak time than another stream based on transit time (length) in the watershed.  This may complicate some of the manual calculations.  Add to that there, can be different storm events to account for 100 yr, 50 yr etc, which I bet you have looked at already - each has a different hyetograh.   Putting that together, streams E-I would each have a different peak point in time - and these are streams leaving the yellow area you have marked and differing peaking time steps.  A-D have flow criss-crossing the yellow boundary and again at any given time have a different stream flow peak than each other - largely flowing into the yellow zone.  Calculating the flow accumulation at point O seems straight forward with a hydrologic model, but I support you in that the calculations you are trying to make are difficult.   If this project is still going/in need, could you reply back with what you are doing with or need to do with the accumulation?  designing or sizing something?   Are you just focusing on point O or all yellow zones in this area? (very sorry - late reply just came across your original post) Respectfully, Martin ... View more

Evan, Wanted to ask - when you mentioned finding the flow of the lift stations, where you looking for a:"flow direction" or b:"volume of flow" or flowrate (i.e. 1 cubic foot/per second).  2 different variables/different answers.  Also once knowing a or b, what is the next step, what are they looking to do?  Thanks for posting the question, look forward to your response - talk soon! Respectfully, Martin ... View more