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

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 GIS / InfoWater Integration

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 GIS / InfoWater Integration

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 GIS / InfoWater Integration

7 Data requirements for modeling GIS Gravity main Fitting Hydrant Line valve Change of condition Meter station Control valve Storage facility Pump Production well GIS / InfoWater Integration Hydraulic model Pipes (links) Junctions (nodes) Valves Tanks Pumps Reservoirs

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) GIS / InfoWater Integration

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) GIS / InfoWater Integration

10 Data requirements for modeling Valves (specifically pressure control valves) Location (x,y) Modeling properties Elevation Pressure settings Age (general information) GIS / InfoWater Integration

11 Data requirements for modeling Tanks Location (x,y) Modeling properties Diameter and volume Base elevation Min/max/initial water level Age (general information) GIS / InfoWater Integration

12 Data requirements for modeling Pumps Location (x,y) Modeling properties Type Elevation Horsepower Design head and design flow Age (general information) GIS / InfoWater Integration

13 Data requirements for modeling Reservoirs (Wells at Colorado Springs Utilities) Location (x,y) Modeling properties Type Head Pattern (depending on pump) Depth Capacity GIS / InfoWater Integration

14 System comparisons Linear feature comparisons Point feature comparisons GIS / InfoWater Integration

15 Linear system comparison GIS / InfoWater Integration 2 versions of same pipe 3 line segments 4 vertices

16 Linear system comparison GIS / InfoWater Integration

17 Linear system comparison Explode model pipes into line segments Convert segments to centroids (w/ attributes) Spatial join (limit20’) Compare attributes GIS / InfoWater Integration

18 Linear system comparison GIS / InfoWater Integration

19 Linear system comparison GIS / InfoWater Integration

20 Linear system comparison GIS / InfoWater Integration

21 Linear system comparison GIS / InfoWater Integration

22 Pipe roughness coefficient GIS / InfoWater Integration Pipe diameter1965 to presentBefore 1965 >= 30 inch > 12 inch to 30 inch <= 12 inch Rule-based

23 Pipe roughness GIS / InfoWater Integration 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 GIS / InfoWater Integration Linear system comparison

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 GIS / InfoWater Integration Node comparison results

26 Elevation data comparison GIS / InfoWater Integration

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” GIS / InfoWater Integration

28 Questions? Will Allender Special thanks to Penn State Dr. Patrick M. Reed – Technical Advisor Dr. Doug Miller – Academic Advisor GIS / InfoWater Integration