• State Suggested Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 9 replies
  • Answers 5 answers
  • Subscribers 83 subscribers
  • Views 6432 views
  • Users 0 members are here
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

USING A RESERVOIR TO MODEL THE CONNECTION TO AN EXISTING SYSTEM IN WATERCAD

Rob Wassum PE
Offline

I'm using a Reservoir in WaterCad to model the connection point to an existing water main based on fire hydrant flow data. 

This is a basic WaterCad question that has been discussed and it seems that everyone has a different opinion. I'm looking for insight on the use of a reservoir and fire flow test data to model the connection to an existing system using WaterCad. I'd like to confirm that this approach is valid along with the pros and cons of doing it this way. I do understand that you can use a pump curve to mimic the existing connection flow and pressure fluctuations. However; I'm only using a reservoir to model the connection.

The model was developed to evaluate fire flows required for a proposed multifamily development with a single looped 6" diameter water main. 

Two hydrants were flow tested and the results are below:

FH-1 - Static PSI - 80, Residual PSI = 77, Pitot PSI = 62, Flow GPM = 3922

FH-2 - Static PSI - 80, Residual PSI = 72, Pitot PSI = 59, Flow GPM = 3826

Based on this data, I'm using 72 PSI and 3826 GPM to set the parameters for my reservoir.

Is this a valid approach? Pros and cons? Does the Pitot PSI need to be taken into account?

Any and all insight will be greatly appreciated!

Parents
  • 0 Offline
    It's a matter of engineering judgment. How comfortable are you in your assumption that the hydraulic grade you measured will the value there during the design fire.

    My preference of course is to have a fully calibrated model of the system as the basis for design.

    One thing you have working in your favor is that you only got a 3 psi pressure drop at a flow of 3922 gpm. That means you must be sitting on a very large transmission main. Therefore, the pressure probably won't drop much during a large fire. If you were being fed by an old 6 inch main, the assumption of a fixed HGL would be much more unreasonable.

    In the end, you're the one whose seal will be on the plans. If you feel good about a fixed HGL, then use it.
  • 0 Offline in reply to Tom Walski
    Tom,

    Thanks for the insight and in this case my numbers are stable and strong so my model should be valid. Do you have opinion on adjusting the connection values based on the Pitot Pressures? In the past, I've received the static, residual and flows from hydrant flow testing. How much do you consider the Pitot pressure when doing a fire simulation? I've researched extensive literature and don't have a clear understanding. What are your thoughts about the Pitot pressure if it was your model? You're correct, I have to feel comfortable and confident before I seal a design.

    Thanks again,

    Rob Wassum PE

  • 0 Offline in reply to Rob Wassum PE

    Hello Rob,

    I'm not sure if it was adjusted, you may need to check with the person or persons who did the hydrant test. If you know the discharge coefficient, you can use the equation that converts pitot pressure to flow to confirm if that was used. This is mentioned on page 185 (equation 5.1) of our book Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management. It's also referenced in this wiki article.

    As far as the WaterCAD model, this would effect the inflow vs. pressure rating table that you establish with the "fake" pump and reservoir. As the downstream demand changes, the pump shifts on its curve to provide the corresponding pressure. If you're not seeing a significant pressure drop, then the exact flow amount from the recording may not have a large impact. You could also make a conservative assumption and use a reservoir at a fixed elevation.


    Regards,

    Jesse Dringoli
    Technical Support Manager, OpenFlows
    Bentley Communities Site Administrator
    Bentley Systems, Inc.

  • 0 Offline in reply to Jesse Dringoli
    Jesse is right but the trick is figuring out where to set the reservoir HGL. Too low and you're wasting money being over-conservative; too high and you may not have enough pressure during an actual fire.

    I'm still trying to figure out what Rob means by "hydrant flow test results adjusted based on Pitot pressure". I've never heard of this or as lest not heard of it with those words. Exactly what are you adjusting and how are you adjusting it.
  • 0 Offline in reply to Jesse Dringoli
    Jesse,

    Thanks for the feedback. The fire flow testing service takes readings but has no idea on how to use them when for design purposes. That was my first call but it didn't help.

    Rob Wassum PE

  • 0 Offline in reply to Tom Walski
    Tom,

    I agree and I can make assumptions and run various scenarios and remain conservative. In this case I'm connecting to a main near the plant so I've got plenty of pressure and flow.

    "hydrant flow test results adjusted based on Pitot pressure" This is my main question at this point. I've never adjusted the flow testing results based on the pitot pressure. However, I was asked if this should be done since it's reported on the flow test results report. During my literature research (mainly NFPA), it's not clear to me. Some approaches take the pitot pressure into account and most do not. I'm want to understand if I should adjust the flow test results based on the Pitot PSI. In summary, do I ignore the pitot psi or not and why?

    Thanks again,

    Rob Wassum PE

  • 0 Offline in reply to Rob Wassum PE
    Rob,

    You're not ignoring the Pitot pressure; you are using it to determine the hydrant discharge.
Reply Children
No Data
Communities
Support and Services
Training and Learning
Social Media