HomeMy WebLinkAbout; Carlsbad Research Center Water Supply Study; Carlsbad Research Center Water Supply Study; 1989-07-24o
LUKE-DUDEK S^SS™
CIVIL ENGINEERS, INC. feT^-SH?
Fax No. (619) 632-0164
231-01
July 24,1989
Carlsbad Municipal Water District
5950 El Camino Real
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Attn: Mr. Jerry Whitley
Re: Carlsbad Research Center, Lots 16,18 and 19
Gentlemen:
At your request, a study of the water supply system for the proposed development of lots
16, 18, and 19 of the Carlsbad Research Center has been conducted by Luke-Dudek Civil
Engineers, Inc. for Brian Smith, Engineers, Inc. on behalf of the property owner. The
results of that study are presented herein.
INTRODUCTION
The project site, lots 16, 18, and 19 of the Carlsbad Research Center, is located off
Rutherford Road and Pascal Court in the City of Carlsbad, California just north of
Palomar Airport. The proposed development consists of two buildings totaling 193,280
square feet of floor area. Warehousing, including high pile storage, is the primary
anticipated use of these facilities, but the structures have been designed to accommodate a
variety of other occupancies including: office, research, and manufacturing. The Carlsbad
Fire Marshall has established a fire flow requirement of 5600 gpm for this development
based on the size of the structures, the type of construction, and the potential occupancies
of the proposed facilities. Water supply to the proposed development is provided by the
Carlsbad Municipal Water District (CMWD).
CRITERIA
The water supply system must be capable of supplying the needed fire flow (NFF) of 5600
gpm to the proposed facilities at a minimum residual pressure of 50 psi. The NFF will be
supplied from a combination of fire hydrants and fire service connections. The design
flowrate for each active fire service connection is 1000 gpm, based on 0.45 gpm per square
foot over a 2000 square foot design area. The Carlsbad Fire Department may use up to
Mr. Jerry Whitley Page Two
1500 gpm per fire hydrant to match the capacity of their pumper trucks, however, the
Insurance Services Office (ISO) will only give credit for 1000 gpm per hydrant and that
flowrate has been used in this design study. Velocities in pipelines in this study have
generally been limited to 10 feet per second or less to prevent excessive friction losses and
damage to the line. A tabulation of flowrates versus velocity and friction loss for a variety
of alternative pipe sizes is provided in Table 1.
EXISTING FACILITIES
This project is located in the elevation 550 hydraulic gradeline (HG) pressure zone of the
CMWD system. Water supply to the proposed development will be provided by a 16-inch
pipeline in Rutherford Road, which is currently fed from CMWD's 700 HG pressure zone
primarily through the Koll pressure reducing station (PRS) on El Camino Real
approximately 2000 feet from the project site. CMWD has awarded a contract for
construction of a 24-inch diameter pipeline in El Camino Real from Palomar Airport Road
north to Faraday Avenue, which will eliminate the Koll PRS and connect to another PRS
at the intersection of El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road. This PRS is
approximately 1600 feet from the current location of the Koll PRS. The water supply
system facilities are shown in Figure 1.
METHODOLOGY
Evaluation of the adequacy of the existing water supply system through the use of flow tests
on existing fire hydrants in the vicinity of the project would not provide reliable results due
to the impact the pending improvements mentioned above will have on the water supply
system. Instead, a computer model of the appropriate portion of the CMWD distribution
system, and the computer program KYPIPE, was used to analyze this system. The pipe
network used in the computer model, shown in Figures 1 and 2, was based on existing and
proposed waterline lengths and sizes, modified to reflect the proposed changes along El
Camino Real. Demands for the computer model were adapted from the most recent
District Master Plan, after discussion with CMWD personnel. Simulations were conducted
for maximum day and peak hour demands without fire flow, and for maximum day
demands with two fire flow scenarios at the project site. The input data for the computer
model, and the results of all four simulations, are provided in Appendix A.
ANALYSIS
The existing water supply system appears adequate for supplying the required fire flow to
the proposed development. Although velocities greater than 10 feet per second are
predicted in certain portions of the system, predicted residual pressures at the project site
are always greater than 60 psi, and the higher velocities appear acceptable in light of the
Mr. Jerry Whitley Page Three
situations where they occur. In addition, the system demands used can be considered
conservative since they are based on an ultimate, rather than current level of development,
and allowable development densities have been reduced since the Master Plan was
prepared. Also, the entire 550 HG pressure zone was not modeled and some of the
demands modeled will probably be met by additional flows from other portions of the
pressure zone, thus reducing flows through the modeled portion of the pressure zone.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The recommended water line sizes in the proposed development are shown in Figure 2.
The required line sizes were estimated from the anticipated flow rates in each line
segment, and verified using the results of the four computer simulations described above.
Replacement of the existing 8-inch water service connection in Rutherford Road feeding
lot 16 with a larger 14-inch connection is considered essential. Replacement of the 8-inch
water service in the cul-de-sac of Pascal Court with a larger 10-inch service is strongly
recommended.
Luke-Dudek very much appreciates the opportunity to complete this work on the Carlsbad
Research Center development in order to assist in achieving the goals of the various
entities involved. Luke-Dudek would be happy to host or attend a meeting of all parties
concerned, if requested. In the meantime, if you have any comments or questions
concerning this report please contact Mr. Jeff Den Herder at (619) 942-5147.
Very truly yours,
Luke-Dudek Civil Engineers, Inc.
/&tteve L. Deering, Prmapal
L. DenHerder, Project Engineer
cc: Carlsbad Fire Marshall, Attn: Mr. Michael Smith
Brian Smith Engineers, Inc., Attn: Mr. Art Macaraeg
Smith Consulting Architects, Attn: Mr. Mark Langan
Q IN GALLONS PER MINUTE
VELOCITY IN FEET PER SECOND
HEADLOSS IN FEET PER 100 FEET
C FACTOR OF 120
TABLE 1
VELOCITY AND HEADLOSS CHART
24 INCH 16 INCH 14 INCH 12 INCH 10 INCH 8 INCH 6 INCH
Q V
0 0.00
100 0.07
200 0.14
300 0.21
400 0.28
500 0.35
600 0.43
700 0.50
800 0.57
900 0.64
1000 0.71
1250 0.89
1500 1.06
1750 1.24
2000 1 .42
2250 1.60
2500 1.77
2750 1.95
3000 2.13
3500 2.48
4000 2.84
4500 3.19
5000 3.55
5500 3.90
6000 4.26
6500 4.61
7000 4.96
7500 5.32
8000 5.67
8500 6.03
9000 6.38
9500 6.74
10000 7.09
11000 7.80
12000 8.51
13000 9.22
14000 9.93
15000 10.64
16000 11.35
17000 12.06
18000 12.77
19000 13.47
20000 14.18
HL
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.07
0.08
0.10
0.13
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.37
0.42
0.47
0.53
0.59
0.65
0.72
0.85
1.00
1.16
1.33
1.52
1.71
1.91
2.12
2.35
2.58
V
0.00
0.16
0.32
0.48
0.64
0.80
0.96
1.12
1.28
1.44
1.60
1.99
2.39
2.79
3.19
3.59
3.99
4.39
4.79
5.58
6.38
7.18
7.98
8.78
9.57
10.37
11.17
11.97
12.77
13.56
14.36
15.16
15.96
HL
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.11
0.15
0.20
0.26
0.33
0.40
0.47
0.55
0.74
0.94
1.17
1.43
1.70
2.00
2.32
2.66
3.02
3.41
3.81
4.24
4.69
5.15
V HL
0.00 0.00
0.21 0.00
0.42 0.01
0.63 0.01
0.83 0.03
1.04 0.04
1.25 0.05
1.46 0.07
1.67 0.09
1.88 0.11
2.08 0.14
2.61 0.21
3.13 0.29
3.65 0.39
4.17 0.50
4.69 0.62
5.21 0.76
5.73 0.90
6.25 1.06
7.29 1.41
8.34 1.81
9.38 2.25
10.42 2.73
11.46 3.26
12.51 3.83
13.55 4.45
14.59 5.10
15.63 5.79
NOTE:
VELOCITY
1000 GPM
1500 GPM
V
0.00
0.28
0.57
0.85
1.13
1.42
1.70
1.99
2.27
2.55
2.84
3.55
4.26
4.96
5.67
6.38
7.09
7.80
8.51
9.93
11.35
12.77
14.18
HEAD VA2/2G
HL
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.15
0.19
0.24
0.29
0.44
0.62
0.83
1.06
1.32
1.60
1.91
2.25
2.99
3.83
4.77
5.79
AT 10
V
0.00
0.41
0.82
1.23
1.63
2.04
2.45
2.86
3.27
3.68
4.09
5.11
6.13
7.15
8.17
9.19
10.21
11.23
12.26
14.30
16.34
FEET PER
HL
0.00
0.01
0.04
0.08
0.13
0.20
0.28
0.37
0.47
0.59
0.71
1.08
1.51
2.01
2.58
3.21
3.90
4.65
5.47
7.27
9.31
SECOND IS
IN A 4" PUMPER CONNECTION RESULTS IN
IN A 4" PUMPER CONNECTION RESULTS IN
V
0.00
0.64
1.28
1.91
2.55
3.19
3.83
4.47
5.11
5.74
6.38
7.98
9.57
11.17
12.77
14.36
15.96
1.6 FEET
A 5 PSI
A 12 PSI
HL V
0.00 0.00
0.03 1.13
0.11 2.27
0.23 3.40
0.39 4.54
0.59 5.67
0.82 6.81
1.09 7.94
1.40 9.08
1.74 10.21
2.12 11.35
3.20 14.18
4.49 17.02
5.97
7.65
9.51
11.56
PRESSURE DROP
PRESSURE DROP
HL
0.00
0.12
0.44
0.92
1.58
2.38
3.34
4.44
5.69
7.07
8.60
13.00
18.22
SQUIRES
CONTROL
DISTRICT
OPERATIONS
CENTER
EXISTING WATER LINES
PROPOSED WATER LINES
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
FIRE HYDRANT
NODE NUMBER
PIPE NUMBER
PRESSURE REDUCING STATION
FOR MORE INFORMATION IN
THIS AREA SEE FIGURE 2
PALOMAR AIRPORT
250 500 FT.
FROM 700 HE
PRESSURE ZONE
FIGURE 1
EXISTING WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
LUKE-DUDEK
EXISTING WATER LI
PROPOSED WATER fINES
PROPERTY BOUNDA
FIRE HYDRANT
NODE NUMBER
PIPE NUMBER
80 160 FT.
Rutherford Rd.
EXISTING
8' SERVICE
EXISTING
8' SERVICE
LOTS 18 & 1
FIGURE 2
PROPOSED WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
LUKE-DUDEK
o APPENDIX A
FLOWRATE IS EXPRESSED IN GPM AND PRESSURE IN PSI6
A SUMMARY OF THE ORIGINAL DATA FOLLOWS
PIPE NO. NODE NOS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
JUNCTION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
4
1
7
8
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
29
NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
30
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
LENGTH
(FEET)
1600.
1800.
750.
1100.
2700.
1300.
2300.
400.
400.
1050.
1500.
350.
550.
110.
170.
290.
170.
210.
170.
210.
390.
240.
60.
DIAMETER ROUGHNESS MINOR LOSS
( INCHES )
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DEMAND
358
2940
2800
395
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
24
24
20
18
18
12
16
16
16
12
16
10
14
14
14
12
12
8
10
10
10
10
8
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
ELEVATION
.
.
•
300.
250.
260.
300.
304.
304.
309.
310.
311.
308.
307.
307.
307.
305.
308.
305.
304.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
120.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CONNECTING
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
12
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
29
30
30
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
PIPES
11
4
10
12
20
11
26
550.00
OUTPUT SELECTION: ALL RESULTS ARE OUTPUT EACH PERIOD
THIS SYSTEM HAS 23 PIPES WITH 20 JUNCTIONS, 3 LOOPS AND 1 PGNS
Appendix A - 1
pSPECIFA SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION
THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE
JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND
3 4500.00
THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 4 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00025
CRC LOTS 16-18-19 WATER (FIREPLOW) STUDY
MAXIMUM DAY DEMANDS
PIPE NO. NODE NOS. FLOWRATE HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
4
1
7
8
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
30
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
10993.00
7604.03
4500.00
3104.03
3287.91
347.91
-2452.09
-2178.30
-2452.09
-541.87
3388.97
-273.79
273.79
273.79
273.79
273.79
273.79
.00
273.79
273.79
273.79
273.79
273.79
13.64
7.75
2.97
3.66
9.99
.54
-8.77
-1.23
-1.53
-.99
10.42
-.23
.07
.01
.02
.08
.05
.00
.11
.14
.25
.16
.12
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
7.80
5.39
4.60
3.91
4.15
.99
-3.91
-3.48
-3.91
-1.54
5.41
-I-12
.57
.57
.57
.78
.78
.00
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.12
1.75
8.52
4.31
3.96
3.33
3.70
.42
-3.81
-3.06
-3.81
-.95
6.95
-.65
.13
.13
.13
.27
.27
.00
.65
.65
.65
.65
1.92
Appendix A - 2
THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND 10993.00
o
JUNCTION NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
DEMAND
.00
.00
4500.00
358.00
2940.00
2800.00
.00
.00
395.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
GRADE LINE
536.36
528.61
525.64
524.95
514.96
514.42
523.19
524.42
525.94
524.35
524.33
524.31
524.23
524.19
524.19
524.08
523.94
523.69
523.53
523.42
ELEVATION
300.00
250.00
260.00
300.00
304.00
304.00
309.00
310.00
311.00
308.00
307.00
307.00
307.00
305.00
308.00
305.00
304.00
PRESSURI
97.48
114.82
110.25
96.72
95.51
96.18
93.32
92.88
92.44
93.70
94.12
94.12
94.07
94.88
93.47
94.70
95.08
SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES
PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE
1 10993.00
THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 10993.00
THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00
Appendix A - 3
c
PECIA SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION
THE DEMANDS ARE CHANGED FROM ORIGINAL VALUES BY A FACTOR = 2.00
THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE :
JUNCTION NUMBER DEMAND
3 4500.00
THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 2 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY
CRC LOTS 16-18-19 WATER (FIREFLOW) STUDY
PEAK HOUR DEMANDS
.00328
PIPE NO. NODE NOS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
4
1
7
8
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
29
OS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
30
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
FLOWRATE
17486.00
11354.91
4500.00
6854.91
6660.84
780.84
-4819.16
-4281.08
-4819.16
-521.93
6131.09
-538.09
538.09
538.09
538.09
538.09
538.09
.00
538.09
538.09
538.09
538.09
538.09
HEAD LOi
32.22
16.29
2.97
15.87
36.94
2.42
-30.67
-4.28
-5.33
-.93
31.24
-.79
.24
.05
.07
.27
.16
.00
.39
.48
.88
.54
.40
HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000
.00
,.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
12.40
8.05
4.60
8.64
8.40
2.21
-7.69
-6.83
-7.69
-1.48
9.78
-2.20
1.
1.
.12
.12
1.12
1.53
1.53
.00
2.20
2.20
2.20
2.20
3.43
20.14
9.05
3.96
14.43
13.68
1.86
-13.33
-10.71
-13.33
-.88
20.82
-2.27
.44
.44
.44
.93
.93
.00
2.27
2.27
2.27
2.27
6.72
Appendix A - 4
JUNCTION NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
DEMAND
.00
.00
4500.00
716.00
5880.00
5600.00
.00
.00
790.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
GRADE LINE
517.78
501.49
498.52
485.62
448.68
446.26
476.93
481.21
486.55
480.97
480.92
480.85
480.58
480.42
480.42
480.03
479.56
478.67
478.13
477.72
ELEVATION
300.00
250.00
260.00
300.00
304.00
304.00
309.00
310.00
311.00
308.00
307.00
307.00
307.00
305.00
308.00
305.00
304.00
PRfinfljK
80 .44
86.10
80.71
76.67
76.79
79.10
74.52
74.07
73.60
74.78
75.15
75.15
74.98
75.64
73.96
75.02
75.28
THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 17486.00
SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES
PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE ,
1 17486.00
THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 17486.00
THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00
Appendix A - 5
iPEC]A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION
THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE :
JUNCTION NUMBER
3
24
25
26
27
28
DEMAND
4500.00
600.00
1000.00
1000.00
2000.00
1000.00
THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY
CRC LOTS 16-18-19 WATER (FIREFLOW) STUDY
MAX DAY PLUS FIRE LOTS 18-19
.00371
PIPE NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
NODE
0
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
4
1
7
8
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
29
NOS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
30
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
FLOWRATE
16593.00
10448.29
4500.00
5948.29
4265.85
1325.85
-1474.15
-3631.15
-7074.15
1324.44
6144.71
2157.00
3443.00
3443.00
3443.00
3443.00
3443.00
1000.00
1843.00
843.00
-1157.00
-2157.00
-2157.00
HEAD LOSS
29.24
13.96
2.97
12.20
16.18
6.45
-3.42
-3.16
-10.86
5.20
31.37
10.39
7.54
1.51
2.33
8.42
4.94
4.45
3.77
1.09
-3.65
-7.12
-5.28
PUMP HEAD
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
MINOR LOSS
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
,.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
VELOCITY
11.77
7.41
4.60
7.50
5.38
3.76
-2.35
-5.79
-11.29
3.76
9.80
8.81
7.18
7.18
7.18
9.77
9.77
6.38
7.53
3.44
-4.73
-8.81
-13.77
HL/1000
18.27
7.76
3.96
11.09
5.99
4.96
-1.49
-7.89
-27.14
4.95
20.91
29.68
13.71
13.71
13.71
29.03
29.03
21.19
22.18
5.21
-9.36
-29.68
-87.98
Appendix A - 6
JUNCTION NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
DEMANlT
.00
.00
4500.00
358.00
2940.00
2800.00
.00
.00
395.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
600.00
1000.00
1000.00
2000.00
1000.00
.00
.00
GRADE LINE
520.76
506.80
503.83
494.60
478.41
471.97
475.38
478.54
489.40
471.00
469.50
467.17
458.75
453.81
449.36
450.04
448.95
452.60
459.72
465.00
ELEVATK
300.00
250.00
260.00
300.00
304.00
304.00
309.00
310.00
311.00
308.00
307.00
307.00
307.00
305.00
308.00
305.00
304.00
84.32
98.98
91.85
76.00
75.63
80.34
70.20
69.12
67.67
65.32
63.62
61.69
61.98
62.38
62.6,6
67.04
69.77
THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 16593.00
SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES
PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE
1 16593.00
THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 16593.00
THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00
Appendix A - 7
SPEC]A SUMMARY OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED FOR THE NEXT SIMULATION
THE FOLLOWING SPECIFIC DEMAND CHANGES ARE MADE :
JUNCTION NUMBER
3
20
21
22
23
DEMAND
4500.00
1600.00
1000.00
1000.00
2000.00
THE RESULTS ARE OBTAINED AFTER 3 TRIALS WITH AN ACCURACY = .00413
CRC LOTS 16-18-19 WATER (FIREFLOW) STUDY
MAXIMUM DAY PLUS FIRE LOT 16
PIPE NO. NODE NOS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
1
2
2
4
5
6
7
8
4
1
7
8
20
21
22
23
24
24
26
27
28
29
[OS.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9
9
30
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
FLOWRATE
16593.00
10431.91
4500.00
5931.91
4214.40
1274.40
-1525.60
-2610.50
-7125.60
1359.51
6161.09
1084.90
4515.10
2915.10
1915.10
915.10
-1084.90
.00
-1084.90
-1084.90
-1084.90
-1084.90
-1084.90
HEAD LO
29.24
13.92
2.97
12.14
15.82
5.99
-3.64
-1.71
-11.00
5.45
31.52
2.91
12.45
1.11
.79
.72
-.58
.00
-1.41
-1.75
-3.24
-1.99
-1.48
HEAD LOSS PUMP HEAD MINOR LOSS VELOCITY HL/1000
.00 .00 11.77 18.27
.00 .00 7.40 7.74
.00 .00 4.60 3.96
.00 .00 7.48 11.04
.00 .00 5.31 5.86
.00 .00 3.61 4.61
.00 .00 -2.43 -1.58
.00 .00 -4.17 -4.28
.00 .00 -11.37 -27.51
.00 .00 3.86 5.19
.00 .00 9.83 21.01
.00 .00 4.43 8.31
.00 .00 9.41 22.64
.00 .00 6.08 10.07
.00 .00 3.99 4.62
.00 .00 2.60 2.50
.00 .00 -3.08 -3.42
.00 .00 .00 .00
.00 .00 -4.43 -8.31
.00 .00 -4.43 -8.31
.00 .00 -4.43 -8.31
.00 .00 -4.43 -8.31
.00 .00 -6.92 -24.64
Appendix A - 8
JUNCTION NUMBER
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
DEMAND
.00
.00
4500.00
358.00
2940.00
2800.00
.00
.00
395.00
1600.00
1000.00
1000.00
2000.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
GRADE LINE
520.76
506.84
503.87
494.70
478.87
472.88
476.53
478.24
489.24
465.79
464.68
463.89
463.17
463.75
463.75
465.16
466.90
470.14
472.14
473.62
ELEVATION
300.00
250.00
260.00
300.00
304.00
304.00
309.00
310.00
311.00
308.00
307.00
307.00
307.00
305.00
308.00
305.00
304.00
PP%P TP1
84.37
99.18
92.25
76.49
75.50
80.27
67.94
67.03
66.25
67.24
67.93
67.93
68.54
70.16
70.26
72.43
73.50
THE NET SYSTEM DEMAND = 16593.00
SUMMARY OF INFLOWS(+) AND OUTFLOWS(-) FROM FIXED GRADE NODES
PIPE NUMBER FLOWRATE
1 16593.00
THE NET FLOW INTO THE SYSTEM FROM FIXED GRADE NODES = 16593.00
THE NET FLOW OUT OF THE SYSTEM INTO FIXED GRADE NODES = .00
Appendix A - 9