2006 Update to Water Demand and Infrastructure

Transcription

City of Yuba City
Yuba City Update to Water Demand
and Infrastructure System
Evaluation
Technical Memorandum
July 2006
Table of Contents
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
Background............................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose and Objectives............................................................................................................................ 1
Water Demands and Supply.................................................................................................... 2
Planning Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 2
Water Demand Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 2
May 2004 Water Master Plan Projected Buildout Water Demands ..................................................... 2
May 2006 Revised Projected Buildout Water Demands ...................................................................... 3
System Evaluation Assumptions and Criteria ....................................................................... 5
Updated Water Distribution System ......................................................................................................... 5
Model Update ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Model Calibration.................................................................................................................................. 9
Field Data ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Calibration Process .......................................................................................................................... 9
Hydraulic Calculations ........................................................................................................................ 10
System Analysis ................................................................................................................................. 10
Booster Pumping Station (BPS) ............................................................................................................. 12
Existing BPS Capacity (Distribution System) ..................................................................................... 12
Storage Tank Facilities ........................................................................................................................... 12
Operational ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Emergency ......................................................................................................................................... 13
Fire ..................................................................................................................................................... 13
Existing Storage Facility Assessment ................................................................................................ 13
Future Park Irrigation .............................................................................................................................. 14
Recommended improvements ...............................................................................................15
Future Distribution Piping Improvements ............................................................................................... 15
Transmission Main ............................................................................................................................. 15
Pressure Reducing Valves ................................................................................................................. 16
Future BPS Capacity .............................................................................................................................. 16
Future Storage Facility Assessment....................................................................................................... 18
Results of Extended Period Simulations ................................................................................................ 19
Phasing of Distribution and T-main System Infrastructure Improvements ............................................. 20
Phase 1 Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 20
Fire Flow Improvements (Regions 1, 2, and 3) .................................................................................. 21
Water System Cost Estimates................................................................................................22
Cost Estimating Accuracy....................................................................................................................... 22
Baseline Construction Costs .................................................................................................................. 22
Pipelines ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Bore and Jack Casing ........................................................................................................................ 23
Storage ............................................................................................................................................... 23
BPS’.................................................................................................................................................... 24
Construction Contingency....................................................................................................................... 24
Engineering, Administration, and Construction Management Costs...................................................... 24
Capital Improvement Program (CIP) ......................................................................................24
Water Distribution System Costs ............................................................................................................ 24
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
Tables:
Table 1. May 2004 WMP Projected Buildout Water Demands. ................................................................... 3
Table 2. Buildout Population Based on Lower Limit Land-Use Densities.................................................... 4
Table 3. Buildout Population Based on Upper Limit Land-Use Densities.................................................... 4
Table 4. Revised Projected Buildout Water Demands................................................................................. 4
Table 5. Generic Diurnal Curve Information (Used to Operate in Extended Period Mode)......................... 7
Table 6. Selected Fire Flow Sites used for Model Calibration. .................................................................... 9
Table 7. Roughness Coefficients. .............................................................................................................. 10
Table 8. System Pressure and Velocity Criteria. ....................................................................................... 11
Table 9. Yuba City Hydraulic Model: Buildout Demands Used in Model................................................... 11
Table 10. Existing Booster Pumping Capacity........................................................................................... 12
Table 11. Insurance Service Office Fire-Flow and Storage Requirements. .............................................. 13
Table 12. Existing Storage Facility............................................................................................................. 14
Table 13. Existing Minimum Water Storage Capacity Required (Surface Water System). ....................... 14
Table 14. Recommended Firm Pumping Capacities from WTP’s HLPS. .................................................. 16
Table 15. Total Booster Pumping Capacity Needed at Buildout................................................................ 17
Table 16. Recommended BPS Locations and Capacities (Distribution System). ..................................... 18
Table 17. Buildout Condition’s Minimum Total Storage Capacity Required. ............................................. 18
Table 18. Recommended Future Tank Locations and Capacity Summary. .............................................. 19
Table 19. Pipe Construction Unit Costs. .................................................................................................... 23
Table 20. Estimated Bore and Jack Unit Costs. ........................................................................................ 23
Table 21. Storage Tank Estimated Unit Costs........................................................................................... 23
Table 22. Phase 1 Estimated Capital Improvement Costs. ....................................................................... 24
Table 25. Fire Flow Piping Capital Improvement Costs (Regions 1, 2, and 3).......................................... 25
Figures:
Figure 4-3. Updated City of Yuba City Buildout SOI Proposed Improved Distribution System ................... 6
Figure 1. Generic Diurnal Curve. ................................................................................................................. 8
Appendices:
Appendix A.
Appendix B.
Appendix C.
Appendix D.
Detailed Cost Estimates
Calibration Data - Pump and Reservoir Information
Calibration Data - Static and Residual Pressures and Hydrant Flows
Examples of Typical PRV Stations
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
HDR prepared the City of Yuba City’s May 2004 Water System Master Plan Update. The May
2004 water master plan (WMP) evaluated the current and future water needs for the City and
the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI), including the former Hillcrest Water Company
groundwater regions acquired by the City in May 2001. The result of the master plan’s
evaluations was the proposed Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the City’s water
distribution system and Surface Water Treatment Plant (SWTP). The CIP identifies
improvements needed to meet the projected growth and water demand in the City, former
Hillcrest Regions, and future developments in the SOI.
The May 2004 WMP was based on the land use proposed for the City’s 2004 General Plan
Update. At buildout conditions, the General Plan anticipated that additional housing units will
be within the currently undeveloped areas of the City’s SOI (which is primarily within the
master plan’s Regions 4A/5A and 4B/5B). The May 2004 WMP estimated the number of
additional housing units at buildout based on the lower limits of the land-use densities allowed
in the General Plan. This update considers and reflects the upper limit of these densities
allowed in the General Plan. The additional dwelling units calculated using the upper limit will
result in higher water demands than those discussed in the May 2004 WMP.
An update of the water model (taking into consideration the revised water demands) and an
updated infrastructure system evaluation is required to assist with planning the future capital
water infrastructure improvements.
The purpose of this technical memorandum (TM) is to summarize the assumptions, evaluation
results, and the team’s recommendations developed from the water modeling update and
infrastructure system evaluations. The evaluation will include the following:
Review of the water demands to determine the impacts of the additional dwelling units
anticipated within the undeveloped areas of the City’s SOI at buildout conditions.
The evaluation of the City’s surface water distribution system.
Update to the hydraulic model to include new infrastructure constructed after the May
2004 WMP was finalized.
Update to the hydraulic model to reflect the revised buildout water demands.
Expansion of the steady-state water model to a dynamic model capable of performing
extended period simulations (EPS). The dynamic model will allow the City to perform
water age simulations if needed to comply with the new Stage 2 Disinfection ByProduct’s requirement for Initial Distribution System Evaluations (IDSE).
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
The water demands will be updated so that the City may determine if the City’s water treatment
and distribution facilities are adequately sized to ensure reliable water service for future
conditions.
This update considered the same planning areas used in the May 2004 WMP evaluations. The
City’s SOI includes the following regions (see Figure 2-1 in the May 2004 WMP):
City of Yuba City.
Region 1 (formerly known as Hillcrest Water Region 1).
Region 2/3 (formerly known as Hillcrest Water Region 2/3).
Region 5 (formerly known as Hillcrest Water Region 5 - Tierra Buena area).
Region 4A/5A planning area.
Region 4B/5B planning area.
The City’s SOI is bordered by the Feather River to the east, Pease Road to the north, Township
Road to the west, and Bogue Road to the south. Although the City has recently incorporated
most of Region 2/3 within the City limit, this update will evaluate Region 2/3 as a separate
planning area. Currently, surface water service is provided only within the existing City limit
boundary and Region 5. All other areas within the service area are served by groundwater
wells. Regions 4A/5A and 4B/5B are primarily undeveloped.
In addition, the following unincorporated areas were also included in the City’s water service
area evaluation:
Region 6 planning area.
Region 7 planning area.
These areas were included in the update evaluation to plan for the possibility of future water
infrastructure extension to these regions.
May 2004 Water Master Plan Projected Buildout Water Demands
To be consistent with the City’s 2004 General Plan Update, the May 2004 WMP estimated
buildout water demands in the SOI using the per capita projection method and peaking demand
factors. The buildout condition’s average annual demand was estimated based on the General
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
Plan’s projected population and a demand factor of 273 gpcd. The projected population was
based on:
The average density (dwelling units per acre for each residential land use classification).
Acreage available in the undeveloped areas of the SOI.
Average household size of 2.67 people per dwelling unit.
The 2004 General Plan Update reported the total population at buildout will be approximately
108,300 people in the City’s SOI, with a majority of the population increase in the undeveloped
areas of the SOI. The May 2004 WMP considered that most of the population growth would
occur in Regions 4A/5A and 4B/5B. Table 1 summarizes the projected buildout water demands
reported in the May 2004 WMP.
Population
Average
Annual
(MGD)
Maximum Day
(MGD)
Peak Hour
(MGD)
Yuba City
43,679
11.92
23.85
41.74
Regions 1 and 2/3
9,350
2.55
5.11
8.93
Planning Area
Region 5 (Tierra Buena)
3,119
0.85
1.70
2.98
Regions 4A/5A and 4B/5B
52,226
14.26
28.52
49.90
108,374
29.6
59.2
103.6
3,354
0.92
1.83
3.20
Total SOI (Buildout)
Region 6
Region 7
Total Water Service Area (Buildout)
Park Irrigation (Regions 1, 2/3, 5, 4A/5A, 4B/5B) 6
Total Water Demand
7,045
1.92
3.85
6.73
118,773
32.4
64.9
113.5
--
4.60
4.60
4.60
118,773
37.0
69.5
118.1
Water savings due to conservation measures are accounted for by using a demand factor of 273 gpcd.
Projected average annual demand based on a per capita demand factor of 273 gpcd.
Maximum Day demand = 2.0 peaking factor x average annual demand.
Peak Hour demand = 3.5 peaking factor x average annual demand.
Regions 6 and 7 are presented for water infrastructure planning purposes.
Park Irrigation demand will be supplied by existing and future groundwater wells.
May 2006 Revised Projected Buildout Water Demands
At the kickoff of this project, the City requested that HDR evaluate the buildout water demands
based on the upper limit land-use densities allowed in the General Plan. The higher densities
would result in higher number of dwelling units and therefore, higher population projection.
Table 2 summarizes the residential average densities considered for the May 2004 WMP.
Table 3 summarizes the higher densities considered in this project. Table 4 summarizes the
revised projected buildout water demands based on the higher land-use densities and resulting
population as reported in Table 3.
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
!
Residential Land Type
Single Family - Low Density
Acres
Avg. Density
Units/Acre
Total Additional
Housing Units
(Dwelling Unit)
Additional
Population
(2.67 Persons/Unit)
3,801
4.25
16,150
43,120
619
9
5,570
14,870
235
24
Single Family - Low/Medium Density
Medium/High Density
Total
4,655
5,640
15,060
27,360
73,050
Based on land use and buildout acreage of undeveloped lands reported in Table 3-2 of General Plan.
Based on residential average densities reported in Chapter 3 of the General Plan.
"
!
!
Acres
Avg. Density
Units/Acre
Total Additional
Housing Units
(Dwelling Unit)
Additional
Population
(2.67 Persons/Unit)
3,801
5.5
20,910
55,830
Single Family - Low/Medium Density
619
10
6,190
16,530
Medium/High Density
235
24
5,640
15,060
32,740
87,420
Residential Land Type
Single Family - Low Density
Total
4,655
Based on land use and buildout acreage of undeveloped lands reported in Table 3-2 of General Plan.
Higher residential average densities based on information provided by City at project’s 03/20/2006 kickoff meeting.
# $
Population
Average
Annual
(MGD)
Maximum Day
(MGD)
Peak Hour
(MGD)
Yuba City
43,679
11.92
23.85
41.74
Regions 1 and 2/3
9,350
2.55
5.11
8.93
3,119
0.85
1.70
2.98
Regions 4A/5A and 4B/5B
52,226
14.26
28.52
49.90
Additional Population
36,110 *
9.03
18.06
31.06
144,484
38.6
77.2
135.1
3,354
0.92
1.83
3.20
Planning Area
Total SOI (Buildout)
Region 6
Region 7
Total Water Service Area (Buildout)
Park Irrigation (Regions 1, 2/3, 5, 4A/5A, 4B/5B)
Total Water Demand
7,045
1.92
3.85
6.73
154,883
41.5
82.9
145.1
--
4.60
4.60
4.60
154,883
46.1
87.5
149.7
Water savings due to conservation measures are accounted for by using a demand factor of 273 gpcd.
Projected average annual demand based on a per capita demand factor of 273 gpcd.
Maximum Day demand = 2.0 peaking factor x average annual demand.
Peak Hour demand = 3.5 peaking factor x average annual demand.
Regions 6 and 7 are presented for water infrastructure planning purposes.
Park Irrigation demand will be supplied by existing and future groundwater wells.
* The General Plan noted the additional population to only be approximately 51,310 people in the SOI. Therefore, this
evaluation considered the additional population increase to be closer to 36,110 people (87420 - 51310 people).
!
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
#
$
The same criteria used in the May 2004 WMP were used to evaluate the adequacy of the
existing water distribution systems, including storage and booster pumping facilities. The
updated evaluations focused on the water service area through buildout of the current City
limits and SOI.
%
For this update, the entire water service area was evaluated to meet current and buildout water
demands. This section summarizes:
A description of the development and calibration of the hydraulic model.
Results of the hydraulic evaluation to alleviate current and projected future deficiencies
in the distribution system.
Storage and booster pumping capacity evaluation.
The distribution system was modeled for the following alternatives:
1. The existing City of Yuba City proper, including new pipe additions and water system
improvements since publication of the May 2004 WMP. Source of water is surface
water.
2. Existing Regions 1, 2, and 3 were modeled considering only treated surface water as
the source for future distribution system improvements.
3. Future buildout of the City SOI including Yuba City and Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 4A/5A, and
4B/5B. The May 2004 WMP’s Figure 4-3 was updated to show the proposed
improvements recommended based on the latest water model update and results of the
latest infrastructure evaluations (see the revised Figure 4-3).
The pipe length totals presented in this TM reflect recommended improvements for future SOI
buildout, except for the piping improvements inside of Region 5, which were included in the
2002 Tierra Buena Report.
"
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
Model Update
The updated Yuba City hydraulic model was prepared in WaterCAD version 7. The steadystate model created for the May 2004 WMP was updated by City staff to include new piping
constructed since the previous model was used. The model database was updated with new
piping greater than 8 IN in diameter. Pipes less than or equal to 8 IN were included when
closing a loop or serving a large customer.
The model was also modified to enable it to operate in extended period mode. This included
the following edits:
Changing existing reservoirs from fixed grade nodes to tanks so that water levels in the
reservoirs could be simulated.
Adding controls on pumps so that they will start and stop as appropriate.
Inserting a diurnal curve in the model.
Since the City had limited historical SCADA information, a generic diurnal curve was used.
See Table 5 and Figure 1 for information on the generic curve considered.
- .
'
$ ,(
/!
Hour
Demand Factor
0 (Midnight)
0.33
1
+
01
2
Hour
Demand Factor
0.26
13
1.27
2
0.23
14
1.24
3
0.22
15
1.24
4
0.28
16
1.28
5
0.36
17
1.36
6
0.55
18
1.50
7
0.95
19
1.67
8
1.18
20
1.74
9
1.28
21
1.65
10
1.32
22
1.00
11
1.33
23
0.52
12 (Noon)
1.30
24 (Midnight)
0.33
'
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
Figure 1 - City of Yuba City Hydraulic Modeling
Generic Diurnal Curve
2.0
1.8
1.6
Demand Factor
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1
Midnight
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 13
Noon
Hour of Day
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 24
Midnight
Model Calibration
Field Data
Field data was collected for the calibration effort by City staff in April 2006. Data was
collected for eight separate fire flow sites in the distribution system. The sites were selected
based on their location with respect to existing pump stations and reservoirs, their location on
the end of dead-end lines, and the ability to access the site and discharge large flows to the
surface safely. The sites are identified in Table 6.
3 *
%
Fire Flow
No.
%
*
(
Flow Hydrant
'
Junction
Name
Gage Hydrant
Junction
Name
1
End of Brandywine Drive cul-de-sac
FF Flow 1
(J-635)
Royo Ranchero and Brandywine
Drive
FF Gage 1
(J-634)
2
End of Century Park Drive cul-de-sac
FF Flow 2
(J-159)
Century Park Drive and Hunn Road
FF Gage 2
(J-157)
3
End of Utah Court cul-de-sac
FF Flow 3
(J-690)
Utah Court and Eureka Drive
FF Gage 3
(J-691)
4
End of Sombra Court cul-de-sac
FF Flow 4
(J-14)
Sombra Court and Serena Drive
FF Gage 4
(J-18)
5
End of Chloe Court cul-de-sac
FF Flow 5
(J-805)
Chloe Court and Tre Picos Drive
FF Gage 5
(J-806)
6
End of Messina Court cul-de-sac
FF Flow 6
(J-946)
Messina Court and Messina Drive
FF Gage 6
(J-366)
7
End of Kira Court cul-de-sac
FF Flow 7
(J-96a)
Kira Court and Hooper Road
FF Gage 7
(J-666)
8
Masera Way and Allen Way
FF Flow 8
(J-884)
Josephine Way and McCune
Avenue
FF Gage 8
(J-882)
Information on the status of pumps (on/off), pump flows, pressure at pump discharge, at
clearwell/reservoir water levels are included in Appendix B. Static and Residual pressures and
hydrant flows during the fire flow test are included in Appendix C, along with the modeling
results.
Calibration Process
The following steps were taken during the calibration process:
Demand for the day of the fire flow tests was approximated based on existing demand
conditions and allocated to the junction nodes in the model.
Pumps operating during the tests were set as “on” and those not operating were set as
“off.”
Water levels in the reservoirs were set at the levels identified in the tables.
)
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
A simulation was run without any fire flows to determine the static pressure for the
system. The resulting pressures were recorded and are included in Appendix C. Flow
through each operating pump was also identified and compared with the field measured
flows.
Static pressures from field and model were compared to identify where there were
significant differences. Since all sites were within 4 psi and the model was both higher
and lower than the field values (average difference 1.8 psi), static pressures were
considered to be calibrated for planning level analysis.
Each fire flow was modeled by adjusting the demands in the model to include the fire
flow measured during the field analysis. Eight separate simulations were performed,
one for each fire flow. The resulting pressure at the gage junction was recorded and is
presented in Appendix C.
During the initial evaluation, modeled pressures at the gage hydrants were uniformly
higher than were the field values. Friction factors (C-factors) were adjusted downward
to increase friction losses in the pipes.
The eight fire flow simulations with lower C-factors were run to confirm the new
values.
Appendix C lists the final pressure values for the static and fire flow conditions.
The resulting model is considered calibrated for planning purposes. Additional calibration
should be completed to use the model for water age analysis. This additional calibration will
consist of extended period simulations of known system demand with the intent to match water
levels in reservoirs and pumping operations between the model results and field conditions.
Hydraulic Calculations
The model calculations were based on the Hazen-Williams equation. Roughness coefficients
are presented in Table 7. Pipes sizes were based on design constraints for pressure, flow, and
pipe velocities.
4 #
&5
'
((
Hazen-Williams Roughness Coefficient
Existing Piping
100
Proposed Piping
130
System Analysis
The updated water model was evaluated for the three operational scenarios to determine system
improvements required to meet minimum pressure and velocity requirements. The scenarios
modeled consisted of the following:
Normal operation – Average day demand and maximum day demand.
Peak hour (135.1 mgd for SOI buildout condition).
*
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
The system criteria used in the May 2004 WMP were used for the latest infrastructure
evaluations. The system evaluation criteria are defined in Table 8 for these three operational
scenarios.
6 *
7
'
System Criteria
Allowable Velocities
Allowable Pressures
Maximum Day and Peak Hour maximum velocity
7 fps
Fire-Flow maximum velocity
10 fps
Normal Operation maximum pressure
60 psi
Normal Operation minimum pressure
40 psi
Peak Hour minimum pressure
30 psi
Fire-Flow minimum pressure (at all nodes)
20 psi
The hydraulic model was used to determine how to move water across the system from the
Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to the extent of the proposed water service area. The analysis
used projected buildout maximum day and peak hour demands and identified improvements
needed to meet minimum pressure requirements under the demand conditions. There was no
analysis of adequacy during fire flow conditions. New piping in the model was limited to
12 IN and larger and typically followed main street alignments (approximate 1 mile grid).
New piping, reservoirs, and pump stations, as identified in Figure 4-3 of the May 2004 WMP,
were inserted in the calibrated model. Three additional reservoir/pump station facilities were
also inserted into the model. See the updated Figure 4-3 for the locations of the new facilities.
The new piping projects kept the same name as listed in the CIP tables from the May 2004
WMP.
Each junction in the model was assigned a Region designator. Buildout demands were
allocated proportionally to the junctions so that all junctions within a Region had the same
demand. Table 9 lists the demands by pressure zone and the number of junctions that have
been assigned to each Region.
8 )
'
9
:
!
Maximum Day
Demand (MGD)
Number of
Junctions
Yuba City
23.92
649
Region 1
1.93
14
Region 2
2.49
18
Region
Region 3
0.28
2
Region 3/7
4.26
3
Region 4/5A
18.16
46
Region 4/5B
28.42
73
Region 5
1.70
162
Region 6
1.83
4
-
41
Pump Station
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
Maximum Day
Demand (MGD)
Region
Transmission
Total
Number of
Junctions
-
50
82.99
1,062
Pump station designation is for nodes at existing and proposed reservoir/pump station sites and have no customer demands.
Transmission designation is for junctions located along the proposed T-main loop.
Regions 3/7 are for the three nodes along the southern perimeter or Region 3 that will connect to future piping in Region 7.
An evaluation of the piping included in the calibrated model identified those projects from the
May 2004 WMP that had already been installed. These completed projects were removed from
the list of proposed projects, and remained in the model.
+
,
Existing BPS Capacity (Distribution System)
Table 10 summarizes the City’s existing BPS’ capacity in the surface water distribution system.
The City’s existing High Lift Pumping Station (HLPS) at the WTP has a firm pumping capacity
of 30 mgd and delivers treated surface water to the distribution system in the City and Region 5
only. Since the distribution system in the City does not have sufficient booster pumping
capacity, the HLPS must also contribute to the peak demands in the City and Region 5. As
noted in Table 2-7 in the May 2004 WMP, the current peak hour demand from the City is
38.22 mgd and from Region 5 is 2.98 mgd. The total treated surface water distribution
system’s existing peak demand is 41.2 mgd. Therefore, with the existing HLPS, the City has
sufficient booster pumping capacity to meet the current surface water peak demands in the City
and Region 5.
01
&
&'
Firm Pumping Capacity
(MGD)
Location
Water Treatment Plant (Existing HLPS)
30.0
Booster Pumps at Sam Brannon Tank Site
1.3
Booster Pumps at Rowe Avenue Tank Site
1.3
Booster Pumps at Burns Tank Site
3.3
Booster Pumps at Harter Tank Site
10.8
Total
-
46.7
.
This project used the same storage tank sizing criteria used in the May 2004 WMP. There are
three components of storage volume normally attributed to each storage facility:
Operational
Emergency
Fire
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
Operational
The intent of operational storage is to provide the difference in quantity between customers’
peak demands and the system’s available supply, which is typically designed to only meet the
maximum day demand. Operational storage is replenished during off-peak hours when demand
is lower than the supply production rate. With operational storage, system pressures are
improved and stabilized to better serve customers throughout the service area. Operational
storage is approximately equal to 25 percent of the maximum day demand.
Emergency
Emergency storage volume is recommended to meet water demand during emergency
situations such as pipeline failures, major T-main failures, pump failures, electrical power
outages, or natural disasters. The volume of water allocated for emergency uses is determined
based on historical records of emergencies, and on the amount of time which is expected to
lapse before the emergency state can be corrected. As in the May 2004 WMP, this evaluation
calculated the emergency storage volume to be equivalent to 75 percent of average day
demand.
Fire
Fire storage volumes vary and will be based on the requirements of the Insurance Services
Office (ISO). Table 11 summarizes the minimum fire-flow requirements for different land use
categories and with duration of 4 hours. Storage volume is calculated by multiplying the flow
rate by 4 hours. Fire storage should typically be provided in each tank to assure it can flow
easily to the fire event.
,
*
$
+ ((
%
%
*
& # ;
Minimum Flow at 20 psi
(GPM)
Storage Volume
(GAL)
Residential – Low Density
2,000
480,000
Residential – Medium Density
3,000
720,000
Commercial
5,000
1,200,000
Industrial
5,000
1,200,000
Schools, Hospitals, Civic
4,000
980,000
Land Use Category
According to ISO requirements, flow rates may be met by any combination of pumping and
storage. A 2,000 gpm residential fire that lasts 4 hours would require 480,000 gallons (gal) of
stored water, and a 5,000 gpm industrial fire that lasts 4 hours would require 1,200,000 gal of
water. The City would be required to have the larger of the two volumes, or 1,200,000 gal of
water stored for fire fighting purposes.
Existing Storage Facility Assessment
The WTP is designed to supply the distribution system’s maximum day demands. When
demand exceeds the established maximum day demand, additional volume is provided from
storage facilities, requiring less treatment capacity. Once demand falls below the maximum day
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
demand, excess water produced by the WTP goes into storage. A properly designed and
operated water system has a net storage change of zero in any 24-hour period.
Each ground level tank location includes a BPS. The tanks are equipped with altitude valves
that control water levels.
The City’s existing storage facilities are summarized in Table 12. Since the May 2004 WMP
was finalized, the City has constructed two of the recommended storage tanks:
New Clearwell at WTP (4 MG Total).
New Harter Storage Tank (4 MG Total).
The Harter tank was identified in the May 2004 WMP as the “New Tank @ UPRR/Elmer
Drive.”
Table 13 summarizes the minimum required storage capacity needed in the surface water
system servicing the City and Region 5. With the recent addition of the Harter Tank, the City
has sufficient storage capacity in the surface water system.
01
&*
& %
Tank Site
Water Treatment Plant
Type
Total Storage Capacity (MG)
Old Clearwells (2)
Partially Buried - Pre-stressed Concrete
4.0
New Clearwell
Partially Buried - Pre-stressed Concrete
4.0
Harter Tanks
Ground level – Steel
4.0
Sam Brannon Tank
1.0
Rowe Avenue Tank
1.0
Burns Tank
3.0
Sub-Total Existing Storage
" 01
&
*
& '
# ;
17.0
/*
(
Average
Day
Demand
MGD
Maximum
Day
Demand
MGD
Yuba City, Existing Limits
10.92
21.84
5.46
Region 5
0.85
1.70
0.43
11.77
23.54
5.88
8.83
Existing Surface Water
Service Area
Total Surface Water
Service Area
*
2
Minimum Storage Requirements (MG)
Operational
25% of MD
Emergency
Fire
Total
75% of AA
5000 gpm
x 4 hrs
Storage
8.19
1.2
14.85
0.64
1.2
2.26
1.2
15.91
.
It was assumed parks would be irrigated with groundwater.
!
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
/
This section presents the recommended improvements identified during the May 2006
modeling analysis for the City of Yuba City potable water service area. This includes all
recommended improvements to the service area. The improvements required for each phase of
the development are listed below.
.
The model was set up to operate the water system slightly differently than from previous
simulations. Because of the maximum pressure limitation in the distribution piping near the
WTP, it was determined it would be impossible to move water across the system (from the
WTP within the distribution piping) and still meet the minimum pressure requirements. Thus, a
portion of the existing and proposed large diameter piping was used to create a transmission
main (T-main) loop around the water service area.
Transmission Main
The pipelines used in the T-main are listed below:
An existing 30 IN pipeline south from the WTP along Live Oak Blvd, Ainsley Avenue,
Orange Street, Rosalind Avenue, and Cooper Avenue to the intersection of Cooper and
B Street. The existing connection between this line and the distribution system piping at
Cooper and Freemont will be disconnected and a Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV)
(TPRV-2) is installed between the T-main and the distribution system piping at Cooper
and B Street.
A new 30 IN pipeline south on Clark/Bunge to Lincoln. A PRV (TPRV-3) is proposed
to be installed between the T-main and the distribution system piping at Clark/Bunge
and Lincoln. The existing 24 IN pipe that feeds the Burns Reservoir is then connected
to the 30 IN T-main at this location.
A new 30 IN pipeline west on Lincoln from Clark/Bunge to George Washington Way.
A new 30 IN pipeline north on George Washington Way from Lincoln to Franklin
Road. A PRV (TPRV-7) is installed between the T-main and the distribution systems at
George Washington Way and Franklin.
A new 30 IN pipeline east on Franklin from George Washington Way to Harter Road.
A new 36 IN pipeline north on Harter from Franklin to State Highway 20 where it
connects to the existing 36-inch pipeline. A PRV (TPRV-12) is installed between the Tmain and the distribution systems at Harter and State Highway 20.
An existing 36 IN pipeline north on Harter from State Highway 20 to Butte House
Road.
A new 36 IN pipeline east on Butte House Road and north on Blevin from the end of the
existing pipeline on Harter to Blevin and Jamie.
"
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
A new 42 IN pipeline east on Jamie to the WTP. A PRV (TPRV-16) is installed
between the T-main and the distribution systems at North Ridge and W. Onstott
Frontage Road.
The T-main will be operated to deliver water to the PRVs and reservoirs. With the construction
of the T-main, there will effectively be two pressure zones in the Yuba City water system: 1)
the T-main system and 2) the distribution system. Pressure in the T-main will be
approximately 110 psi at the WTP and will drop farther from the WTP. The recommended Tmain pressure is based on maintaining a minimum of 60 psi in the T-main at buildout condition.
At the T-main capacity of 66 mgd (buildout), the model estimated about 50 psi pressure drop
between the HLPS and the most SW corner of the City’s SOI. Therefore, a minimum of
110 psi is needed to maintain 60 psi at the most SW corner of the City’s SOI.
Direct connections between the T-main and the system reservoirs will be included to aid in
refilling the reservoirs. The T-main will act to transfer water throughout the Yuba City water
service area without increasing pressures in the distribution system.
Pressure Reducing Valves
Pressure reducing valves are proposed at locations remote from the proposed BPS/reservoir
sites and where the proposed T-main is near the proposed distribution system piping. A total of
16 PRVs were initially considered and ultimately reduced to the five PRVs listed above.
Because of the reduced number of PRV’s, some booster pumping operation maybe needed to
meet maximum day demands. See Appendix D for some examples of a typical PRV station.
For Yuba City, a 3-valve PRV station is proposed.
.
$
The T-main will operate at a higher system pressure than that produced by the WTP’s existing
HLPS. Therefore, a new HLPS is needed at the WTP to primarily feed the T-main. Table 14
summarizes the required pumping capacity from the WTP’s HLPS for the different CIP phases.
#
%
&'
(
< 9
*
Flow to Distribution System
(MGD)
Flow to T-Main System
(MGD)
Total HLPS Firm Capacity
(MGD)
Phase 1
30
0
30
Phase 2
30
40
70
Phase 3
30
66
96
CIP Phase
Flow to distribution system will be at a lower system pressure (59 psi maximum). Recommend using existing HLPS at WTP.
Flow to T-main will be at a higher system pressure (approximately 110 psi). Recommend designing new HLPS to deliver water
to T-main at higher pressure.
&
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
Water will be provided to the distribution system from the 1) WTP’s existing HLPS and 2) Tmain through PRV’s set at approximately 60 psi.
The booster pumps at the reservoirs will operate based on pressures in the distribution system.
If the PRVs are unable to maintain adequate pressure, the booster pumps will start to augment
the pressure. During low demand seasons, the pumps will operate on timers to ensure that the
reservoirs will not become stagnant. With the T-main being used for reservoir refill, pumps at
the reservoirs can operate at the same time as when reservoirs are being filled. Thus, the
reservoir will not empty, even if the pumps have to operate continuously. Pressures in the
distribution system near the reservoir will not fluctuate between high pressures (as the pumps
operate) and low pressures (during reservoir refill).
The BPS’ in the distribution system will draw water from the reservoirs and deliver the water to
the distribution system. With this approach, the combined pumping capacity of all the BPS’
should equal or exceed the peak hour demands minus the flow from the existing HLPS and
through the proposed PRV’s to the distribution system.
Since the number of PRV’s was reduced, the booster pumps must operate a few hours during
maximum demand days. Table 15 summarizes the minimum pumping capacity needed to meet
buildout peak demands. Table 16 summarizes the recommended BPS’ needed in the
distribution system (based on evaluated extended period simulations). The capacity of each
BPS’ will depend on the demand of the local service area directly served by the pumping
station. Some stations may need smaller pumping capacities than what is recommended. The
capacities may also be reduced if more T-main PRVs are installed.
-
&'
=
Demand Condition
Flow (MGD)
SOI Peak Hour Demand
135.1
Flow to Distribution System *
57.9
Required Peak Demand Pumping Capacity (firm)
Existing Booster Pumping Capacity (firm)
(without existing HLPS at WTP) **
Minimum Additional Booster Pumping Capacity Needed
77.2
16.7
60.5
* Estimated flow from existing HLPS and PRVs is approximated to be midway between buildout SOI average day demand
(38.6 mgd and maximum day demand 77.2 mgd).
** Based on information from Table 10 without the WTP HLPS. The Existing HLPS will be delivering only maximum day demand
flows into the distribution.
'
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
3 #
*
'
/
*
2
Firm Pumping Capacity
(MGD)
Site
Expansion of Existing Burns Tank (provide additional 7.7 mgd)
7.7
Proposed BPS at Franklin Tank Site
16.4
Proposed BPS at Sanborn Tank Site
8.5
Proposed BPS at Lincoln Tank Site
8.6
Proposed BPS at Jamie Tank Site
7.8
Proposed BPS at Hooper Tank Site
8.0
Proposed BPS at Lassen Tank Site
8.0
Proposed BPS at Royo Tank Site
8.0
Total Additional Booster Pumping Capacity
.
73.0
.
Tanks were located throughout the SOI at locations of highest demand and along the proposed
T-main. The number storage tanks needed and the size of each facility were determined based
on model results. Table 17 summarizes future SOI storage tank requirements and includes the
additional population anticipated due to higher residential average densities.
By buildout of the water service area, the total storage capacity required will be 50.6 MG. As
noted in Table 12, the existing storage volume is 15.9 MG. Therefore, a minimum of 34.7 MG
additional storage capacity is needed in the distribution system at buildout.
4
'
<
*
& '
# ;
Operational
Emergency
Fire
25% of MD
75% of AA
5000 gpm
x 4 hrs
Average
Day
MGD
Maximum
Day
MGD
Yuba City, existing limit
11.92
23.85
5.96
8.94
1.2
16.11
Regions 1 and 2/3
2.55
5.11
1.28
1.91
1.2
4.39
Planning Area
Total
Storage
0.85
1.70
0.43
0.64
1.2
2.26
Region 4A/5A and 4B/5B
14.26
28.52
7.13
10.69
1.2
19.02
Additional Population
9.03
18.06
4.51
6.77
1.2
12.48
Total SOI
38.61
77.23
19.31
28.96
1.2
49.47
0.92
1.83
0.46
0.69
1.2
2.34
Total Water Service Area
39.53
79.06
19.77
29.65
1.2
50.62
Region 6
Table 18 summarizes the tanks recommended to provide sufficient storage capacity under
buildout conditions. The size and locations of these tanks are based on the water model results.
See the updated Figure 4-3 for tank locations. In addition to the tanks recommended in the
May 2004 WMP, three additional proposed tanks are noted in Table 18. The three reservoirs
(Hooper, Lassen, and Royo) have been added to this update since the May 2004 WMP and are
also directly connected to the T-main. Additional T-main to supply Hooper and Royo has been
(
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
included in the model. Capacities for the pump stations and volume of reservoir have been
assumed based on information for other proposed reservoirs and not optimized.
6 #
%
>
*
Reservoir Volume
(MG)
Storage Tank
Proposed Burns Reservoir
Proposed Franklin Tank
3.0
6.0
General Location
Second Burns Tank
Harter and Franklin Road
Proposed Sandborn Tank
3.2
Lincoln Road and Sandborn Road
Proposed Lincoln Tank
3.2
George Washington Blvd and Lincoln Road
Proposed Jamie Tank
3.0
Blevin and Jamie
Proposed WTP Clearwell No. 4
4.0
WTP Site
New Proposed Hooper Reservoir
6.0
Jamie and Hooper
New Proposed Lassen Reservoir
6.0
Harter and Lassen
New Proposed Royo Reservoir
3.0
Royo Ranchero and Highway 20
Totals
/
'
37.4
0 #1
Extended period simulations were performed to determine the effectiveness of the proposed
system. Pressures throughout the entire modeled water system range between 40 and 60 psi
throughout the entire 24-hour simulation. Reservoirs fluctuate between 5 feet of drawdown and
full. The booster pumps in the system operate during the highest demand period of the day and
are off for the lower demand periods. Since the reservoirs are filled from the T-main and the
booster pumps deliver water to the distribution system, reservoirs can be filling at the same
time as the pumps are operating. This allows the reservoir water levels to remain within the top
five feet of the reservoir.
Total pumping to the distribution system and to the T-main system from the WTP was
simulated to reach a high of approximately 96 mgd. Of this, a maximum of 30 mgd was
modeled to pump to the distribution system. The remainder is pumped to the T-main. Flows
pumped to the T-main system enter the distribution system through the five PRVs or are
pumped into the distribution piping at the reservoirs by the booster pumps.
The results of this set of simulations can be used to develop a detailed Capital Improvement
Program. Additional simulations are needed to optimize the operations of the T-main system
and the BPS’. Required capacities of the BPS’ and the maximum flow rate into the reservoirs
need to be finalized. Controls for the starting and stopping of the booster pumps should be
reviewed and modified as needed.
Additional steady-state calibration should be performed as new water system infrastructure
facilities are constructed. Extended period calibration should be completed prior to using the
model for analysis of changes to system operation or for detailed water age analysis.
)
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
The model is quite sensitive to the settings for booster pump starts and stops and can fail to
converge to a solution. The setup evaluation described above should assist in reducing the
sensitivity in the model.
2
0
-3
0
This evaluation considered that same phasing approach that was used in the May 2004 WMP.
The recommended improvement projects in Phase 1 are necessary to correct current
deficiencies within the City and Region 5. Recommended improvements in Phase 2 will
improve both system operation and performance, and allow for Regions 1, 2, 3 and portions of
4A/5A and 4B/5B to receive treated surface water. Improvements in Phase 3 are needed to
meet buildout conditions projected for the SOI and Region 6.
As in the May 2004 WMP, distribution system piping improvements for Regions 1, 2, and 3,
have been identified separately from fire-flow piping improvements. Only Regions 1, 2, and
3’s distribution piping improvements have been included in each CIP phase. No planning
period has been identified for Regions 1, 2, and 3’s fire flow piping improvements.
Phase 1 Improvements
There improvements are primarily for the existing water distribution system within the City and
Region 5 to meet City’s operating criteria. This phase also includes improvements to the treated
surface water distribution system to service Region 5, new residential developments in the
western portion of the City, and alleviating operation concerns near the existing Burns reservoir
and BPS.
The priority improvements that are needed prior to the Phase 2 Improvements are:
Completion of ExYC-1 (30 IN Piping) from B-Street/Cooper to Lincoln/Clark.
Installation of TPRV-2 (PRV assembly in vault) near Frederick and Cooper. Transfer
existing distribution system connection to PRV assembly.
Installation of TPRV-3 (PRV assembly in vault) near Lincoln and Bunce at point where
24 IN piping goes to Burns tank.
Installation of Proposed Burns Reservoir (3.0 mgd) at the existing Burns Tank site.
Expansion of the existing BPS at the Burns Tank site to increase pumping capacity to
12.5 mgd.
Includes those improvements needed to create the T-main system dedicated to filling storage
tanks and delivering flow to the distribution system via pressure reducing valves (PRV
assembly). The T-main will be operating at a higher system pressure (approximately 110 psi
near WTP) than the treated surface water distribution system. The distribution system will
*
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
have system pressures as noted in Table 8. The water model limited the amount of flow that is
fed directly into the distribution system (from the WTP’s high lift pumping station or HLPS) to
30 mgd, which is the firm capacity of the WTP’s existing HLPS. The distribution system will
receive the remainder of the flows from the T-main via PRVs.
This phase includes improvements to the treated surface water distribution system to service
Regions 1, 2, 3 and portions of 4A/5A and 4B/5B. The recommended fire-flow piping
improvements are not included in this phase.
This phase includes construction of a new HLPS at the WTP to service the new T-main system.
It is recommended that the new HLPS structure be designed to accommodate a buildout
capacity of 66 mgd (firm). Pumping equipment should be provided to satisfy the next WTP
expansion capacity. Additional pumping capacity can be added as the water service area
maximum day demands increase.
The following improvements are needed prior to the surface water service area maximum day
demand exceeding 30 mgd:
Completion of YC-10 (42 IN Piping) from WTP to Blevin/Jamie (part of T-main).
Completion of R45A-6 (36 IN Piping) from Blevin/Jamie to Butte House/Harter (part of
T-main).
Installation of TPRV-12 (PRV assembly in vault) near Highway 20 and Harter.
Transfer existing distribution system connection to PRV assembly.
Installation of TPRV-16 (PRV assembly in vault) near North Ridge and West Onstott
Frontage Road.
Installation of new HLPS at the WTP to service the new T-main.
The addition of the remaining storage tanks, BPS’, and T-main/distribution piping (see
Appendix A) can be added where water demands are needed.
Includes the remainder of the T-main and distribution system improvements (see Appendix A)
needed to deliver treated surface water to the entire SOI under buildout conditions. The storage
tanks, BPS’, and T-main/distribution piping can be added where water demands are needed due
to development.
Fire Flow Improvements (Regions 1, 2, and 3)
Includes piping improvements needed in Regions 1, 2, and 3 to maintain a minimum system
pressure of 20 psi and maximum pipe velocity of 10 FT per second during fire flow conditions.
During the development of this TM, we discovered that the May 2004 WMP had an error in the
sub-total cost calculation for the fire flow improvements. The sub-total cost shown in Table 25
is slightly less than the 14,982,000 shown in Table 9-4 of the May 2004 WMP.
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
$
#
The criteria from the May 2004 WMP were used as the guideline to update the CIP estimated
costs. Total facility costs include the baseline construction cost, a contingency, and other costs
associated with engineering, administration, and construction management.
$
#
Construction costs for new facilities are based on engineering judgment, recent bid prices, and
historical trends and are not based on detailed engineering design and analysis. Therefore, the
construction cost estimates are considered to range from +30 percent to -30 percent of the
expected bid price.
$
$
For this evaluation, the unit construction cost criteria were adjusted based on:
Current Engineering News Record (ENR) construction cost index.
Available bid prices from similar projects that recently bid.
The May 2004 WMP construction costs reflected an ENR construction cost index for the San
Francisco Bay Area of 7,800, which was the index reported for January 2004. For the updated
cost estimates, ENR’s construction cost index for May 2006 will be considered, which is
approximately 8,500 for the San Francisco Bay Area.
The engineer’s estimated construction costs are based on normal construction, recent projects,
and engineering decisions. Unusual construction must be addressed individually. Contractor’s
overhead and profit are included in the costs.
Pipelines
In the May 2004 WMP, pipeline construction unit costs were estimated from recent bids
received by the Yuba City for several water pipeline projects. For this update, a ratio of the
ENR construction cost index from 2004 to 2006 was used to estimate cost increases. Table 19
summarizes the pipe construction unit costs used in this evaluation.
Estimated unit costs include pipe material, trenching (minimum cover), installation, initial
backfill, controlled density backfill, fittings, valves, service connections, average trench
restoration fees, pavement restoration, fire hydrants, testing, traffic control, and appurtenances.
Unit costs are based on the use of ductile iron piping for diameters less than 18 IN and steel
piping for diameters greater than 20 IN.
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
8
'
!
'
Pipe Diameter (Inches)
Unit Cost (S/LF)
8
$230
10
$270
12
$280
14
$290
16
$310
24
$380
30
$390
36
$430
42
$460
Bore and Jack Casing
Table 20 summarizes the updated estimated unit costs associated with bore and jack pipe
installation work. These unit costs include costs for the steel casing, excavation of the jacking
and receiving pits, and jacking of carrier pipe.
0
?
>!
'
Casing Size (Inches)
Unit Cost ($/LF)
16
$230
20
$280
24
$340
30
$425
36
$510
Jacking Pit
$20,000
Receiving Pit
$13,500
Storage
The updated estimated storage facility unit costs in Table 21 include the tank structure,
foundation, appurtenances, yard piping, and architectural treatment. Costs are provided for
above ground tanks, constructed of either reinforced concrete or steel.
*
&
>0
!
'
Capacity
(MG)
Steel Tank
($/GAL)
Concrete Tank
($/GAL)
0.5
$1.25
$1.35
1.0
$1.10
$1.20
1.5
$1.00
$1.10
3.0
$0.85
$1.00
5.0
$0.65
$0.85
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
BPS’
Costs for BPS’ will vary depending on the features designed into the station such as the number
of pumps, standby power, control features, surge protection features, buildings, architectural
treatment, etc. In addition, some pumping stations may require modification or upgrade only.
Estimated construction costs for BPS’ are determined on a case-by-case basis.
$
$
Since knowledge about site-specific conditions of each proposed project is limited at the master
planning stage, a 30 percent contingency will be applied to the baseline construction cost to
account for unforeseen events and unknown conditions.
#
4
4
$
5
$
A cost equal to 20 percent of construction cost (including contingencies) will be applied to
account for additional items such as engineering, administration, construction management, and
inspection costs.
$
+$ ,
This section summarizes the updates to the Capital Improvement Program for the City’s water
distribution system. The CIP in the May 2004 WMP included all recommended improvements
to the City’s water service area, including improvements to the City’s WTP. Updating the
WTP’s CIP was not included in this project’s scope of work and will be addressed as part of the
WTP expansion project.
$
Table 22 to Table 25 summarizes the estimated costs for each phase. Detailed recommended
improvements and associated cost estimates for each phase are included in Appendix A. The
proposed improvements do not include improvements needed to provide Region 7 with treated
surface water.
5
0
'
,
$
'
Project
Estimated Capital Costs
Water Distribution Piping
$7,270,000
Storage Reservoirs and BPS’
$4,260,000
Subtotal
Contingency (30%)
$11,530,000
$3,460,000
Engineering, Administration, CM (20%)
$3,000,000
Phase 1 Total Costs
$17,990,000
!
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
"
5
0
'
,
$
'
Project
$29,800,000
$27,850,000
Subtotal
$57,650,000
Contingency (30%)
$17,300,000
$14,990,000
Phase 2 Total Costs
5
"0
'
,
$
$89,940,000
'
Project
$44,310,000
$22,960,000
Subtotal
$67,270,000
Contingency (30%)
$20,180,000
$17,490,000
Phase 3 Total Costs
- %
%
&'
,
$
'
/# &
Project
$104,940,000
@ @
"2
Fire Flow Piping
$9,352,000
Subtotal
Contingency (25%)
$9,352,000
$2,810,000
$2,430,000
Fire Flow Piping Total Costs
$14,592,000
"
!!"
# $
%& '%'
%(
%!)*
+,)" -!!+
Appendix A
Detailed Cost Estimates
Appendix A: Updated Capital Improvement Program Costs
Summary of Water Distribution System Capital Improvement Program Costs
Phase I
Distribution Piping
Storage Reservoirs and Pumping Station
7,600,000
4,260,000
Subtotal
11,860,000
Contingency (30%)
3,560,000
3,080,000
Phase I Total (rounded)
18,500,000
Phase II
Distribution Piping
Storage Tanks and Pumping Station
31,840,000
27,850,000
Subtotal
59,690,000
Contingency (30%)
17,910,000
15,520,000
Phase II Total (rounded)
93,120,000
Phase III
Distribution Piping
50,910,000
22,960,000
Subtotal
73,870,000
Contingency (30%)
22,160,000
19,210,000
Phase III Total (rounded)
115,240,000
Fire Flow Improvements (Regions 1, 2, and 3)
Fire Flow Piping
9,352,000
Subtotal
9,352,000
Contingency (30%)
2,810,000
2,430,000
Fire Flow Improvements Total (rounded)
14,592,000
7/13/2006
Page 1 of 6
May 2006 Modeling Analysis
Reservoirs/Booster Pump Facilities
Reservoirs
Volume
(MG)
PHASE 1
Proposed Burns
Reservoir
PHASE 2
Proposed Franklin
Reservoirs
Proposed Sanborn
Reservoir
Proposed Lincoln
Reservoir
Proposed Jamie
Reservoir
WTP HLPS Construct New HLPS
to feed T-Main
Pump Station
TDH
Total
Capacity
(ft)
HP
(mgd)
Location
Comment
3.0
7.7
120
216 Burns Tank Site
Pump capacity increase to
12.5 mgd
6.0
16.4
120
460 Harter and Franklin Tank
Two Tanks and pump
stations
3.2
8.5
120
3.2
8.6
120
238 Sandborn and Lincoln Tank New Facility
George Washington and
New Facility
241 Lincoln Tank
3.0
7.8
120
40.0
275
New Facility
Total WTP HLPS firm
capacity = 70 mgd.
New HLPS
(Dedicate as Transmission Ex HLPS firm = 30 mgd
(dedicate to distrib sys)
2,572 Pumps)
New HLPS
(Add Pumps to feed T1,672 main)
N/A
219 Blevin and Jaime Tank
Tank
Unit
Cost
$0.85
Subtotal
Storage
Cost
Pump Station
Cost
Total Cost
$2,540,000
$2,540,000
$1,720,000
$1,720,000
$4,260,000
$4,260,000
$0.85
$5,080,000
$3,660,000
$8,740,000
$0.85
$2,710,000
$1,930,000
$4,640,000
$0.85
$2,710,000
$1,930,000
$4,640,000
$0.85
$2,540,000
$1,720,000
$4,260,000
--Subtotal $13,040,000
$5,570,000
$14,810,000
$5,570,000
$27,850,000
PHASE 3
WTP Add DYK Clearwell
& New HLPS Pumps
(equip only)
Proposed Hooper
Reservoir
Proposed Lassen
Reservoir
Proposed Royo
Reservoir
Total WTP HLPS firm
capacity = 96 mgd.
Ex HLPS firm = 30 mgd
New HLPS firm = 66 mgd
$1.00
$4,010,000
$760,000
$760,000
4.0
26.0
275
6.0
8.0
120
224 Jamie and Hooper
New Facility
$0.85
$5,080,000
$1,830,000
$4,450,000
6.0
8.0
120
New Facility
$0.85
$5,080,000
$1,830,000
$4,450,000
3.0
8.0
120
224 Harter and Lassen
Royo Ranchero and
224 Highway 20
$0.85
$2,540,000
Subtotal $16,710,000
$1,830,000
$6,250,000
$4,450,000
$14,110,000
Total $32,290,000
$22,780,000
$46,220,000
New Facility
Notes:
1. All storage tanks are steel.
2. All puming stations include the cost of a hydropneumatic tank for surge protection.
7/13/2006
Page 2 of 6
Phase 1 Distribution Piping Improvements
ID
R5-3
R5-4
ExYC-2
ExYC-3
R45A-8
YC-12
ExYC-5
ExYC-4
YC-11-16
R45A-3
R45B-16
ExYC-1
ID
Diameter (IN)
From
Proposed
Existing
Intersection
8
Coy
New
Hooper
10
New
Highway 20
Hooper
12
8
Sherwood Dr. Windsor Dr.
12
8
Walton Ave.
Bridge St.
New
12
Tharp
Hwy 20
12
8
Queen
Blevin
14
New
Teegarden Ave. Shasta St.
16
Hwy 99
New
Franklin Ave.
16
Blevin
New
Queen
Madison
10 & 12
16
Butte House
UPRR
New
16
Harter
30
B Street
New
Cooper
Max Flow
Rate (mgd)
To
Intersection
Coy
Roosevelt
North 1,800FT to existing 10IN
E. Hillcrest Dr. Windsor Dr.
Tharp Rd.
Bridge St.
Klamath Lane
Hwy 20
East to existing 12IN pipe
Cooper Ave.
Forbes Ave.
Walton Ave.
Franklin Ave
Blevin
Butte House
(Hooper)
Butte House
Butte House
Harter
Clark/Bunce
Lincoln
Total
Valve Size (IN)
Length (FT)
800
1,800
280
1,340
1,013
1,015
2,807
2,830
480
1,446
1,794
6,733
22,338
Location
Prop TPRV-2 (ex)
12.2
4
8
10
Frederick and Cooper
Prop TPRV-3
12.5
4
8
10
Lincoln and Bunce
Unit Cost
($/LF)
230
270
280
280
280
280
290
310
310
310
310
390
Total (rounded)
Comment
Not on Drawing 4-3
Not on Drawing 4-3
Not on Drawing 4-3
Not on Drawing 4-3
Partially Completed
Change to replace 8IN pipe
Change to new pipe
Not on Drawing 4-3
Not on Drawing 4-3
Partially Completed
Partially Completed
Comment
Existing Conn transferred
to PRV
Point where 24IN line goes
to Burns Tank
Qnty
Total Cost
$184,000
$486,000
$78,400
$375,200
$283,600
$284,200
$814,000
$877,300
$148,800
$448,300
$556,100
$2,625,900
$7,160,000
Total Cost
1 LS
$220,000
1 LS
Subtotal
$220,000
$440,000
Note:
1. Cost includes package type valve vault, PRV valve units, and isolation valves.
Phase 1 Piping Improvements Total Cost
$7,600,000
7/13/2006
Page 3 of 6
Diameter (IN)
Proposed
Existing
8
New
8
6
12
6-New
8-Jun
12
12
New
New
12
14
New & 6
14
6
14
New & 6
8-New
14
12
14
8-New
14
14
6-New
<8
14
New
14
8-Apr
16
New (10IN)
16
12-Aug
16
16
12-Aug
6-New
16
New
16
New
16
New
16
36
New
42
New
From
Intersection
Cherry St
Harding Rd
Hwy 99
Richland Rd
Jones
Mariposa
Railroad
Teesdale
Ranchero
Butte House
Lassen
Klamath
Richland Rd Glennwood Dr
Richland Rd
Hwy 99
Meadow Ave
Lincoln Ave
Harding
Cherry
Lincoln
Walton
Walton
Bogue
Lincoln
Phillips
Smith
Phillips
Tierra Buena
Butte House
Lincoln
Phillips
Littlejohn
Franklin
Bridge
Hwy 99
Walton
Lincoln
Railroad
Bogue
Bogue
Sanborn
Harding
Franklin
Franklin
El Margarita
Blevin
Jamie
Blevin
Jamie
ID
Max Flow
Rate (mgd)
Valve Size (IN)
Prop TPRV-12 (ex)
Prop TPRV-16
24.5
11.5
ID
Ex2-18
Ex2-5
R1-1
R1-2
R45A-13
R45B-2
Ex1-33
Ex2-19
Ex2-20
R2-2
R2-8
R3-2
R3-4
R3-5
R45A-1
R1-5
R2-6
R2-7
R3-1
R3-3
R45B-12
R45B-13
R45B-14
R45A-6
YC-10
6
4
10
8
To
Unit Cost
Intersection
Length (FT)
Comment
($/LF)
Woodleaf Dr
Harding Rd
690 Not on Drawing 4-3
230
Arden Ave
Hunn Rd
1,350 Not on Drawing 4-3
230
Jones
Teesdale
1,414 Partially Complete
280
Teesdale
Phillips
2,700
280
Butte House
Township
3,361 Changed end of line
280
El Margarita
Lassen
2,762
280
Richland
Walton
290
Hwy 99
Hunn
740 Not on Drawing 4-3
290
Walton Ave
Lincoln Ave
290
Cherry
Walton
2,710
290
Franklin
Walton
6,347 Partially Completed
290
Lincoln
Walton
5,260
290
Lincoln
Walton
290
Smith
Walton
3,310
290
Tierra Buena
Jamie
3,493
290
Bogue
Phillips
5,270
310
Franklin
Walton
962 Partially Completed
310
Walton
Bridge
2,312
310
Ohleyer
Lincoln
2,930
310
Sanborn
Bogue
8,560
310
Jordan
Sanborn
310
Franklin
El Margarita
2,140
310
Franklin
Township
7,480
310
Butte House
Harter
430
WTP
Jamie
8,237
460
Total
98,375
Total (rounded)
Location
16
10
Highway 20 and Harter
North Ridge and W. Onstott Frontage Road
Comment
Existing Connection
transferred to PRV
Qnty
1 LS
1 LS
Subtotal
Total Cost
$158,700
$310,500
$395,900
$756,000
$941,100
$773,400
$826,500
$214,600
$794,600
$785,900
$1,840,600
$1,525,400
$968,600
$959,900
$1,013,000
$1,633,700
$298,200
$716,700
$908,300
$2,653,600
$3,456,500
$663,400
$2,318,800
$2,694,800
$3,789,000
$31,400,000
Total Cost
$220,000
$220,000
$440,000
Note:
$31,840,000
7/13/2006
Page 4 of 6
ID
R2-3
R2-4
R45A-10
R45A-11
R45A-12
R45A-2
R45A-4
R45A-9
R45B-1
R45B-11
R45B-14
R45B15
R45B-17
R45B-18
R45B-19
R45B-24
R45B-25
R45B-3
R45B-4
R45B-5
R45B-6
R45B-8
R45B-9
R6-1A
R6-1B
R6-2
YC-6
Prop Hooper Tran
Prop Royo Tran
PPS-7094
PPS-7090
PPS-7091
ID
Prop TPRV-7
Diameter (IN)
Proposed
Existing
New
30
12
New
12
New
16
New
16
New
16
New
New
12
14
New
12
New
16
New
16
New
New
16
New
36
New
30
New
30
New
30
New
12
New
12
New
12
New
12
12
New
16
New
16
New
New
12
New
12
New
12
New
16
24
New
24
New
16
New
16
New
12
New
Max Flow
Rate (mgd)
10.8
4
From
To
Unit Cost
Intersection
Intersection
Length (FT)
Comment
($/LF)
Lincoln
Clark
Sanborn
Lincoln
8,751
390
Mark Thomas
Bridge
Harter
Bridge
280
Tierra Buena
Jaime
Tierra Buena
Pease
2,902
280
Hooper
Jaime
Jaime
Blevin
4,390
310
Hooper
Jaime
Hooper
Butte House
2,911
310
Greene
Hwy 20
Hwy 20
Township
310
Township
Pease
Tierra Buena
Pease
7,460
280
Butte House
Elmer
Elmer
Jamie
4,230
290
Harter
Bridge
El Margarita
Bridge
1,970
280
Sanborn
Bogue
G. Washington
Bogue
4,660
310
Franklin
El Margarita
Franklin
Township
7,558
310
Bogue
G. Washington
Franklin
G. Washington
10,581
310
Hwy 20
Harter
Franklin
Harter
5,160
430
Franklin
G. Washington
Lincoln
G. Washington
5,240
390
Franklin
Harter
Franklin
G. Washington
4,676
390
Sanborn
Lincoln
G. Washington
Lincoln
4,511
390
Redhaven
Harter
Franklin
Harter
280
Township
Bogue Rd
Bogue Rd
G. Washington
5,030
280
G. Washington
Franklin
Hillview Dr
G. Washington
280
Bogue
Township
Pease
Township
23,490
280
Hwy 20 Northward El Margarita
Franklin
El Margarita
280
Ohleyer
Lincoln
G. Washington
Lincoln
3,310
310
G. Washington
Lincoln
Lincoln
Township
4,950
310
Tierra Buena
Pease Rd
Butte Vista Lane
Pease Rd
5,228 Partially Completed with 16IN in middle
280
Dorothy Chandler
Pease Rd
Hwy 100
Pease Rd
1,810 Partially Completed with 16IN in middle
280
Unincorporated 6
16,700
280
Hwy 99
Pease
North Ridge
Hwy 99
3,934
310
Jamie
Blevin
Jamie
Hooper
4,553 See Note 2
380
Harter
Highway 20
Royo Ranchero
Highway 20
6,434 See Note 3
380
Prop Royo P/S
to North
354 See Note 5
310
Prop Hooper P/S
To East
131 See Note 4
310
Prop Hooper P/S
Hooper
True Road
397 See Note 5
280
Total
161,196
Total (rounded)
Valve Size (IN)
6
10
Location
Franklin and George Washington
Comment
Qnty
1 LS
Subtotal
Total Cost
$3,412,900
$479,900
$812,600
$1,360,900
$902,400
$304,400
$2,088,800
$1,226,700
$551,600
$1,444,600
$2,343,000
$3,280,100
$2,218,800
$2,043,600
$1,823,600
$1,759,300
$950,000
$1,408,400
$784,600
$6,577,200
$275,500
$1,026,100
$1,534,500
$1,463,800
$506,800
$4,676,000
$1,219,500
$1,730,100
$2,444,900
$109,700
$40,600
$111,200
$50,910,000
Total Cost
$220,000
$220,000
Notes:
2. Water supply to Proposed Hooper Reservoir and Pump Station from Transmission main.
3. Water supply to Proposed Royo Reservoir and Pump Station from Transmission main.
4. Piping from P/S to new 16IN in Distribution System.
5. Piping from P/S to Distribution System.
$51,130,000
7/13/2006
Page 5 of 6
Distribution Improvement For Fire Flow Only
Recommended Improvements Based on Those Included in the May 2004 Water Master Plan.
May 2006 Water Modeling Evaluations did not determine if these improvements have been completed.
PROPOSED 8-INCH PIPING IMPROVEMENTS
Diameter
(inch)
From
Intersection
Existing Proposed
ID
8
Phillips Rd
Ex1-1
6
Meadow Ave
8
Phillips Rd
Ex1-33
6
Creswell Dr
8
Celestial Wy
Ex1-2
6
Galaxy Dr
8
Jones Rd
Ex1-3
6
Starlite Ln
8
Jones Rd
Ex1-4
6
Delone Dr
8
Starlite Ln
Ex1-5
6
Delone Dr
8
Delone Dr
Ex1-6
6
Geneva Ave
To
Intersection
Lincoln Rd
Meadow Ave
Phillips Dr
Creswell Dr
FH @ 1070 Celestial Way.
Galaxy Dr
Starlite Ln
Delone Dr loop
Jones Rd
Starlite
Starlite Ln
Geneva Ave
Length
(FT)
1,870
1,950
280
1,350
1,500
490
980
Unit Cost
($/LF)
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
Total Cost
$430,100
$448,500
$64,400
$310,500
$345,000
$112,700
$225,400
1,320
780
420
460
1,390
1,300
2,200
230
230
230
230
230
230
230
$303,600
$179,400
$96,600
$105,800
$319,700
$299,000
$506,000
810
1,580
1,550
650
230
230
230
230
$186,300
$363,400
$356,500
$149,500
1,470
250
1,560
1,360
230
230
230
230
$338,100
$57,500
$358,800
$312,800
Pipe intersection Del Lago Neptune
Teesdale
Del Lago
Dr
Neptune Dr
Pacifica Dr
Albatross Ave
Teesdale Rd
Jeffrey Dr
Jeffrey Dr
Ari Ct
FH @ 1934 Jeffrey Dr
Canterbury Dr
Lincoln Rd
FH @ Brian Dr/Jonathan Dr
Jonathan Dr
Cherry St.
Anita Wy
Elliot Dr
Elliott Dr
Camino Del FloresCamino Del FloresCamino Del Oro
Walton Ave
Arden Ave
Vernon Ave
Hunn Rd
Arden Ave
Littlejohn Rd
Vernon Ave
Bancroft Ave
Arden Ave
Littlejohn Rd
Bancroft Ave
Camino Cortez Camino Cortez
Hunn Rd
Richland Rd
Hunn Rd
Richland Rd
Littlejohn Rd
Littlejohn Rd
6” pipe intersection @ 516 Parkview
FH @ 485 Parkview Ave
Manzanita Wy
Cedar Wy Holly
6” pipe intersection @ 411
Evergreen Wy
Tree Dr
Evergreen Wy
FH @ 1542 Camino Del Oro
Pipe intersection @ 1524
Mesa Verde
Mesa Verde
Walton Ave
Lincoln Rd
Lincoln Rd
FH @ 773 Estates Dr
Tanglewood Dr
Curlotta Wy
Kathleen Wy
S. Barrett Rd
S. Barrett Rd
Meadow Ave
Jones Rd
Jones Rd
Teesdale Rd
Starlite Ln
South end of Del
Lago
FH
Del Lago Ct
Del Lago
La Ramada
Hunn Dr
FH @ 462 La Ramada
Total for 8-inch Piping
1,360
1,140
230
230
$312,800
$262,200
190
470
28,680
230
230
$43,700
$108,100
$6,596,400
PROPOSED 12-INCH PIPING IMPROVEMENTS
Diameter
(inch)
From
To
Existing Proposed
Intersection
Intersection
ID
12
Camino Del Florez
Ex2-16
8
Walton Ave
Walton
Holley Tree Dr
12
Walton
Ex2-17
8
Camino Del Florez
Camino Del Florez Pelican Place
12
Fire Hyrant (FH)
Pacifica Dr
Ex1-10
6
Marlin Ct
Marlin
12
FH
Columbia Dr
Ex1-11
6
Dolphin Ct
Dolphin
12
FH
Jeffrey Dr
Ex1-12
6
Waverly Ct
Waverly
12
FH
Jeffrey
Ex1-13
6
Cambridge Ct
Cambridge
12
FH
Lois Lane
Ex1-14
6
Ari Ct
Ari
12
FH
Lois Lane
Ex1-15
6
Baron Ct
Baron Ct
12
FH
Franquette Dr
Ex1-16
6
Mayette Ct
Mayette
12
FH
Franquette Dr
Ex1-17
6
Claro Ct
Claro
12
FH
Franquette Dr
Ex1-18
6
Cecily Ct
Cecily
12
FH
Jeffrey Dr
Ex1-19
6
Tara Ct
Tara
12
FH
Jeffrey Dr
Ex1-20
6
Jill Ct
Jill
12
FH
Teesdale Rd
Ex1-21
6
Tessdale Ct
Teesdale
12
FH
Phillips Rd
Ex1-24
6
Randolph Dr
Randolph Dr
12
FH
Randolph
Ex1-23
6
Reo Dr
Reo Dr
12
FH
Meadow Ave
Ex1-25
6
Ronald Dr
Ronald
12
FH
Meadow Ave
Ex1-26
6
Barbara Wy
Barbara
12
S. Barrett Rd
Ex1-27
6
Lincoln Rd
Lot on corner
12
Hwy 99
Karen Dr
Ex1-28
6&8
Lincoln Rd
Lincoln Rd
12
FH
Richland Rd
Ex1-29
6
Westwood Dr
Westwood Dr
12
Pebble Beach Dr FH @ Bay Ct
Ex3-1
6
Bay Ct
12
Germaine Dr
Ex3-2
8
Donald Ct
FH @ Donald Ct
12
Thomas Dr
Ex3-3
6
Thomas Ct
FH @ Thomas Ct
12
Edwin Dr
Ex3-4
6
Chelsea Pl
FH @ Chelsea Pl
Total for 12-inch Piping
Length
(FT)
530
1,220
320
310
190
190
260
260
380
380
380
170
170
520
880
370
180
240
630
740
180
650
250
130
310
9,840
Unit Cost
($/LF)
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
280
Ex1-7
Ex1-8
Ex1-9
Ex2-1
Ex2-2
Ex2-3
Ex2-4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
Ex2-6
Ex2-8
Ex2-7
Ex2-9
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
Ex2-10
Ex2-12
Ex2-13
Ex2-14
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
Ex1-30
Ex1-32
6
6
8
8
Ex1-22
Ex2-15
6
4
8
8
TOTAL FIRE FLOW IMPROVEMENTS (rounded)
Total Cost
$148,400
$341,600
$89,600
$86,800
$53,200
$53,200
$72,800
$72,800
$106,400
$106,400
$106,400
$47,600
$47,600
$145,600
$246,400
$103,600
$50,400
$67,200
$176,400
$207,200
$50,400
$182,000
$70,000
$36,400
$86,800
$2,755,200
$9,351,600
7/13/2006
Page 6 of 6
Appendix B
Calibration Data: Pump and
Reservoir Information
APPENDIX B
City of Yuba City Hydraulic Model
Fire Flow Tests for Calibration
Pump and Reservoir Information
HLPS 10
11
12
13
14
0
Harter 1
2
3
4
5
0
Burns 1
2
0
Rowe 1
2
0
Sam B 1
2
Test 1
x
0
0
x
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 2
x
0
0
x
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 3
x
0
0
x
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pumps On/Off
Test 4
Test 5
x
x
0
0
0
0
x
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
x
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
x
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 6
x
0
0
x
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 7
x
0
0
x
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 8
x
0
0
x
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
x
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5/30/2006
Page 1 of 4
APPENDIX B
HLPS 10
11
12
13
14
0
Harter 1
2
3
4
5
0
Burns 1
2
0
Rowe 1
2
0
Sam B 1
2
Test 1
4188
0
0
0
0
0
0
924
0
0
0
0
1258
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 2
5972
0
0
0
0
0
0
924
0
0
0
0
1369
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 3
5105
0
0
0
0
0
0
920
0
0
0
0
1141
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Pump Flows
Test 4
Test 5
5938
5105
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
895
920
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1175
1300
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 6
3875
0
0
0
0
0
0
910
0
0
0
0
1218
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 7
6355
0
0
0
0
0
0
905
0
0
0
0
1328
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Test 8
6155
0
0
0
0
0
0
945
0
0
0
0
1379
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sum
Fire Flow
Base Dmd
6370
1120
5250
8265
1160
7105
7166
1130
6036
8008
1120
6888
6003
1050
4953
8588
1030
7558
8479
1060
7419
7325
1150
6175
5,337 Average Flow
918 Average Flow
1,271 Average Flow
7,526 Average Flow
5/30/2006
Page 2 of 4
APPENDIX B
HLPS 10
11
12
13
14
0
Harter 1
2
3
4
5
0
Burns 1
2
0
Rowe 1
2
0
Sam B 1
2
Test 1
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
0
57
0
Test 2
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
0
58
0
Test 3
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
51
0
0
48
0
Pump Pressures
Test 4
Test 5
56
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
56
0
0
0
0
58
58
0
0
Test 6
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
0
0
58
0
Test 7
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
0
0
57
0
Test 8
56
0
0
0
0
0
0
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56
0
0
59
0
56 Average Pressure
58 Average Pressure
55 Average Pressure
57 Average Pressure
5/30/2006
Page 3 of 4
APPENDIX B
HLPS 10
11
12
13
14
0
Harter 1
2
3
4
5
0
Burns 1
2
0
Rowe 1
2
0
Sam B 1
2
Test 1
13.6
0
0
0
0
0
17.5
0
0
0
0
0
18.8
0
0
18.2
0
0
17.9
0
Test 2
13.5
0
0
0
0
0
17.9
0
0
0
0
0
19.8
0
0
18.2
0
0
17.9
0
Test 3
13.5
0
0
0
0
0
17.8
0
0
0
0
0
19.6
0
0
18.2
0
0
17.9
0
Clearwell Elevation
Test 4
Test 5
13.6
13.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17.6
17.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18.9
18.4
0
0
0
0
18.2
18.3
0
0
0
0
17.9
17.9
0
0
Test 6
13.7
0
0
0
0
0
17.3
0
0
0
0
0
18.3
0
0
18.3
0
0
17.9
0
Test 7
13.6
0
0
0
0
0
17.5
0
0
0
0
0
18.6
0
0
18.3
0
0
17.9
0
Test 8
13.4
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
18.2
0
0
17.9
0
13.6 Average Level
17.6 Average Level
19.1 Average Level
18.2 Average Level
17.9 Average Level
5/30/2006
Page 4 of 4
Calibration Data: Static and
Residual Pressures and Hydrant Flows
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
City of Yuba City Hydraulic Modeling
Results of Calibration *
Sources in this analysis are fixed grade reservoirs and Pressure Reducing Valves (Pumps are not operating)
Test No.
Location
1 Brandywine Dr
2 Century Park Dr
3 Utah Ct
4 Sombra Ct
5 Chloe Ct
6 Messina Ct
7 Kira Ct
8 Josephine Dr
Flowing Node
Node
Flow (gpm)
J-635
1,120
J-159
1,160
J-690
1,130
J-14
1,120
J-805
1,150
J-946
1,050
J-96a
1,030
J-884
1,060
Node
J-634
J-157
J-691
J-18
J-806
J-366
J-666
J-882
Static Pressure (PSI)
Field
Model Difference
56
57.44
1.44
54
58.08
4.08
58
58.50
0.50
58
57.49
(0.51)
55
57.91
2.91
55
58.00
3.00
54
57.47
3.47
58
57.55
(0.45)
Average Difference
Test No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Location
Static
Brandywine Dr
Century Park Dr
Utah Ct
Sombra Ct
Chloe Ct
Messina Ct
Kira Ct
Josephine Dr
Field
5,337
4,188
5,972
5,105
5,938
5,105
3,875
6,355
6,155
HLPS 10
Model
Difference
4,917
(420)
3,783
(405)
5,567
(405)
4,543
(562)
5,373
(565)
4,727
(378)
3,440
(435)
5,729
(626)
5,677
(478)
Average Difference
(474.89)
Residual Node
Residual Pressure (PSI)
Field
Model
Difference
49
54.64
5.64
50
54.88
4.88
51
51.28
0.28
51
45.71
(5.29)
52
54.88
2.88
51
53.66
2.66
51
49.58
(1.42)
44
46.05
2.05
1.81
Pumping Rates
Harter 2
Field
Model Difference
918
682
(236)
924
685
(239)
924
718
(206)
920
670
(250)
895
708
(187)
920
684
(236)
910
667
(243)
905
804
(101)
945
769
(176)
Differences
Model Difference
7
2.80
(4.20)
4
3.20
(0.80)
7
7.22
0.22
7 11.78
4.78
3
3.03
0.03
4
4.34
0.34
3
7.89
4.89
14 11.50
(2.50)
Field
1.46
Field
1,271
1,258
1,369
1,141
1,175
1,300
1,218
1,328
1,379
(208.22)
Burns 1
Model
Difference
1,927
656
1,902
644
1,980
611
1,953
812
1,927
752
1,914
614
1,896
678
2,055
727
2,033
654
683.11
0.34
Field
7,526
6,370
8,265
7,166
8,008
7,325
6,003
8,588
8,479
Total
Model Difference
7,526
6,370
8,265
7,166
8,008
7,325
6,003
8,588
8,479
-
NOTE:
* Colors relate to the relative locations of the sites. Sites with the same color are faily close together.
7/14/2006
Page 1 of 1
Examples of Typical PRV Stations
Appendix D

2006 Update to Water Demand and Infrastructure

Transcription

Similar documents

Noor Fadzli Yahaya UniKL MICET, 2006

hearts aflutter tank top

Hymax Couplings 1.5

Valle Escondido

Solahart Fact File

WW11 Tank - rtfv

Kjerstin Ekvall Presentation Sysav

Print Details - North Point Yacht Sales

Product-Dispensador de Agua 2 - Oasis