Abstract

In general, GEOSECMA for GIS (GfA) and the EPANET hydraulic model are complementary tools from a technological, financial and operational point of view. It is in this way, that water companies can reduce substantial time and money, and provide extensive capability to support decisions in the planning, operation, management and the expansion of water distribution systems. This paper is an attempt to formulate technological assumptions and methodology for GfA-EPANET integration using the example of the water distribution network serving Ząbki, a medium-sized city in the Warsaw metropolitan area. This integration is understood as the process of the spatial physical and water demand data exchange between GfA and the water distribution hydraulic model with a structure tailored to the needs of water meter reading systems.

Highlights

  • Integration of GIS-GEOSECMA for ArcGIS (GfA) offered by ESRI Polska and the hydraulic model (HM) EPANET is the process by which updated properties of water distribution network (WDN) elements are synchronized and migrated between the geodatabase (GDB) and the hydraulic model (HM)

  • Walk-by remote water meter reading systems (WMR) that are based on a new generation IZAR RC I radio module comprised of a portable PSION PRT terminal, an IZAR PRT Bluetooth receiver, an IRDA optical sensor and IZAR radio modules have been installed and are operational at the PWIK Ząbki

  • Break pipe sections only at junctions and structures to be imported into the model Review and correct topology and connectivity as need Each valve feature in the GfA database has a unique ID Control valve structures should be represented in GfA as in the hydraulic model

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Integration of GIS-GEOSECMA for ArcGIS (GfA) offered by ESRI Polska and the hydraulic model (HM) EPANET is the process by which updated properties of water distribution network (WDN) elements are synchronized and migrated between the geodatabase (GDB) and the hydraulic model (HM). The GfA applications provide mapping but offer extensive tools for spatial analysis and data management. This has resulted in a more accurate hydraulic model because of demand and distribution network fidelity [10]. GfA, on the other hand, does not provide hydraulic data which are necessary for efficient water management. Throughout the integrated approach, hydraulic model updates occur much more frequently, because the time consumption for input data transfer to EPANET can be greatly reduced

Study area
Integration procedure
Assumptions for data conversion
Integration model applied
Findings
Summary
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call