city of toronto infoworks cs basement flooding model ......selected the infoworks cs modelling...

City of Toronto InfoWorks CS Basement Flooding Model Studies

Guideline

Version 1.02 – October 2014

DRAFT CITY OF TORONTO INFOWORKS CS BASEMENT FLOODING MODEL STUDIES GUIDELINE Version 1.02 - October 2014

Table of Contents

VERSION CONTROL .................................................................................................................. V

ABBREVIATIONS ....................................................................................................................... VI

GLOSSARY OF COMMON TERMS ........................................................................................... VII

1.0 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................1.1 1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT .................................................................................................... 1.1

2.0 DATA COLLECTION .....................................................................................................2.1 2.1 DESKTOP COLLECTION .................................................................................................. 2.1

2.1.1 Base GIS Layers ............................................................................................ 2.1 2.1.2 Sewer Asset Geodatabase ........................................................................ 2.1 2.1.3 Operations and Maintenance Data ........................................................ 2.2 2.1.4 Flow Monitoring Information ...................................................................... 2.2 2.1.5 Other Supporting Data ............................................................................... 2.2

2.2 FIELD SURVEY .................................................................................................................. 2.3 2.2.1 Address Survey ............................................................................................. 2.3 2.2.2 Catchbasin Survey ...................................................................................... 2.3 2.2.3 Maintenance Hole Cover Survey .............................................................. 2.4 2.2.4 Low Point Survey .......................................................................................... 2.4 2.2.5 Outfall/Surface Drainage Structure Survey .............................................. 2.4 2.2.6 Resident Questionnaire ............................................................................... 2.5 2.2.7 Field Chamber/Facility Inspections ........................................................... 2.5

3.0 DATA ASSESSMENT AND GAP ANALYSIS ...................................................................3.1 3.1 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT .......................................................................................... 3.1

3.1.1 Asset Data Coverage ................................................................................. 3.1 3.1.2 Asset Data Gaps .......................................................................................... 3.2 3.1.3 Flow Monitoring and Rainfall Data............................................................ 3.2

3.2 ENGINEERING VALIDATION ........................................................................................... 3.2 3.3 DATA RECTIFICATION PROCEDURE AND DOCUMENTATION .................................... 3.4

3.3.1 Initial Asset Data Import into InfoWorks CS .............................................. 3.4 3.3.2 Data Rectification Procedure ................................................................... 3.5

4.0 INFOWORKS FILE MANAGEMENT AND SET-UP ...........................................................4.1 4.1 VERSIONING ................................................................................................................... 4.1 4.2 CATCHMENT GROUP HIERARCHY ................................................................................ 4.1 4.3 NETWORK MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................. 4.2 4.4 MODEL GROUP MANAGEMENT ................................................................................... 4.2 4.5 NAMING CONVENTIONS ............................................................................................... 4.4

4.5.1 EA Stage - Model Build ............................................................................... 4.5 4.5.2 Detailed Design Stage ................................................................................ 4.7 4.5.3 Development Application Review............................................................ 4.8

i


4.6 DATA FLAGGING ........................................................................................................... 4.9 4.7 SIMULATION PARAMETERS ........................................................................................... 4.10

4.7.1 Time Step Selection ................................................................................... 4.10 4.7.2 Simulation Parameter Defaults ................................................................ 4.10

4.8 ELEMENT DOCUMENTATION ....................................................................................... 4.11 4.9 MODEL VISUALIZATION STANDARDS .......................................................................... 4.12

4.9.1 Coordinate System .................................................................................... 4.12 4.9.2 Network Objects ........................................................................................ 4.14 4.9.3 Results Themes ........................................................................................... 4.14 4.9.4 Profile “Long-Section” View ..................................................................... 4.15

5.0 HYDRAULICS (CONVEYANCE MODELLING) ..............................................................5.1 5.1.1 Dual Drainage Principle .............................................................................. 5.1 5.1.2 Overland Flow Paths ................................................................................... 5.2 5.2.1 Node Definition ............................................................................................ 5.4 5.2.2 Manhole Flood Type ................................................................................... 5.5 5.3.1 Solution Model ........................................................................................... 5.18 5.3.2 Underground Pipe Cross-Sections ........................................................... 5.18 5.3.3 Minor Losses ................................................................................................ 5.19

5.4 OVERLAND MAJOR SYSTEM CONDUITS .................................................................... 5.20 5.4.2 Overland Spills at Low Points .................................................................... 5.22

5.5 ROOFS ........................................................................................................................... 5.23 5.5.1 Modelling Roofs- Physical Representation ............................................. 5.23 5.5.2 Modelling Large Parking Lots (ICI) ........................................................... 5.27 5.5.3 Modelling Reverse Driveways .................................................................. 5.28 5.5.4 Modelling Rear Yards ................................................................................ 5.28

5.6 SPECIAL HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES .............................................................................. 5.28 5.6.1 Weirs ............................................................................................................ 5.28 5.6.2 Orifices ........................................................................................................ 5.29 5.6.3 Sluice Gates ............................................................................................... 5.29 5.6.4 User-Control ................................................................................................ 5.30 5.6.5 Pumps .......................................................................................................... 5.30 5.6.6 Culverts ....................................................................................................... 5.31 5.6.7 Real Time Control ...................................................................................... 5.32

5.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ............................................................................................ 5.32 5.7.1 Level Based ................................................................................................ 5.32 5.7.2 Flow Based .................................................................................................. 5.33

6.0 HYDROLOGY (SEWAGE AND RUNOFF MODELLING) .................................................6.1 6.1 OVERVIEW ....................................................................................................................... 6.1 6.2 SUBCATCHMENT SET-UP ................................................................................................. 6.2

6.2.1 Sanitary System ............................................................................................ 6.5 6.2.2 Storm/Combined System ........................................................................... 6.6 6.2.3 Roof Areas .................................................................................................... 6.8 6.2.4 Large Parking Lots, Reverse Driveways & Rear Yards ............................. 6.8

ii


6.3 DRY WEATHER FLOW ...................................................................................................... 6.9 6.3.1 EA Modelling ................................................................................................ 6.9 6.3.2 Development Reviews ................................................................................ 6.9

6.4 WET WEATHER FLOW ...................................................................................................... 6.9 6.4.1 Storm Runoff Surfaces ................................................................................. 6.9 6.4.2 Sanitary Infiltration and Inflow .................................................................. 6.12

7.0 CALIBRATION, VALIDATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS .................................7.13 7.1 CALIBRATIONS .............................................................................................................. 7.13

7.1.1 Dry Weather Flow ...................................................................................... 7.13 7.1.2 Sanitary Wet Weather Flow ...................................................................... 7.14 7.1.3 Storm Flow................................................................................................... 7.15

7.2 EXTREME STORM VALIDATION .................................................................................... 7.15 7.2.1 Historic Rainfall Events ............................................................................... 7.15 7.2.2 Long-Term Historic Data ........................................................................... 7.16

7.3 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 7.16 7.3.1 Model Stability ............................................................................................ 7.18

8.0 FLOODING IMPROVEMENT WORKS DEFINITION ........................................................8.1 8.1 CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS ................................................................................... 8.1

8.1.1 Catchbasins ................................................................................................. 8.1 8.1.2 Underground Pipes ...................................................................................... 8.1

8.2 STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS ............................................................................................ 8.2 8.2.1 Underground - In-line Storage ................................................................... 8.2 8.2.2 Underground - Off-line Storage ................................................................. 8.3 8.2.3 Surface Storage Pond ................................................................................. 8.3 8.2.4 Design Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................................... 8.4

9.0 COMPLETED MODEL APPLICATIONS ...........................................................................9.1 9.1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ...................................................................................... 9.1 9.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS ................................................................................................ 9.1

10.0 FINAL DELIVERABLES .................................................................................................10.1 10.1 MODEL SUBMISSIONS ................................................................................................... 10.1 10.2 MODEL RESULTS DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................... 10.2

10.2.1 Sewer Flow Model Results ......................................................................... 10.2 10.2.2 Overland Depth Model Results ................................................................ 10.3

10.3 MODEL DOCUMENTATION FOR FUTURE USERS ......................................................... 10.3 10.4 GEODATABASE SUBMISSION ....................................................................................... 10.3

iii


LIST OF APPENDICES

PROJECT SIGN-OFF SHEETS ...................................................................... A.1 APPENDIX A

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC REFERENCES ......................................... B.1 APPENDIX BB.1 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... B.1

B.1.1 Manning’s Roughness - Surface Flow ....................................................... B.1 B.1.2 Initial Abstraction ......................................................................................... B.1 B.1.3 Infiltration Parameters ................................................................................. B.2 B.1.4 Design Storm Events .................................................................................... B.2

B.2 Hydraulics ....................................................................................................................... B.6 B.2.1 Manning’s Roughness - Closed Conduit .................................................. B.6 B.2.2 Manning’s Roughness - Open Channel Conduits .................................. B.6 B.2.3 Weir Coefficients .......................................................................................... B.7 B.2.4 Minor Losses .................................................................................................. B.7 B.2.5 Culvert Parameters ...................................................................................... B.7

FLOW MONITORING ANALYTICAL PROCESSING ..................................... C.1 APPENDIX CC.1 Rain Gauge Network ................................................................................................... C.1 C.2 Data Analysis Approach ............................................................................................. C.2 C.3 Flow Monitoring Data Reporting ................................................................................ C.3

METADATA STRUCTURE ............................................................................. D.1 APPENDIX DD.1 Data Provided by the City ........................................................................................... D.1 D.2 Project Deliverables .................................................................................................... D.20

EXTERNAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... E.1 APPENDIX E

iv


Version Control

This is a living document that will evolve over time to keep up with advances and lessons-learned in the industry. Please confirm you have the most up-to-date version as referenced in the City’s Request For Proposals or direction upon award of a modelling assignment.

Version Date Description

1.0 July 10, 2014 Initial Draft for Working Group Review

1.01 August 8, 2014 Second Draft for Working Group Review

1.02 October 23, 2014 Final of First Edition

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx v


Abbreviations

CB Catch Basin

CSO Combined Sewer Overflow

DM Depth Monitor

DS Downstream

DWF Dry Weather Flow

EA Environmental Assessment

EOP End-of-Pipe

FM Flow Monitor

HGL Hydraulic Grade Line

I/I Infiltration and Inflow

ICD Inlet Control Device

MH Maintenance Hole

PS Pumping Station

RFP Request For Proposal

RG Rain Gauge

RTC Real Time Control

SWM Stormwater Management

US Upstream

WaPUG Wastewater Planning User Group

WIM Water Infrastructure Management, City of Toronto

WWF Wet Weather Flow

WWFMP Toronto’s Wet Weather Flow Master Plan

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx vi


Glossary of Common Terms

Dry Weather Flow (DWF) Sewage flow resulting from both sanitary wastewater (residential, industrial, commercial, institutional) and infiltration from foundation drains or cracks that occur during periods absent of rainfall or snowmelt.

Wet Weather Flow (WWF) The combination of dry weather sewage/infiltration flows with precipitation-derived (rainfall and/or snowmelt) infiltration and inflow, and stormwater runoff that enter the wastewater collection system.

Urban Drainage System Characterized by road ways with curb and gutter, primarily utilizing catchbasins to collect stormwater runoff to an underground sewer system that typically conveys flow by gravity to a receiving watercourse.

Rural Drainage System Characterized by road ways without curbs and instead convey stormwater by open channel roadside ditches and culverts. Storm runoff may or may not drain to a storm sewer system.

Unimproved Drainage System

Characterized by roads without curbs or ditches, and have no defined surface drainage system. Storm runoff follows surface topography and may not have a continuous flow path to a receiving watercourse/waterbody.

Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) The components of sanitary sewer flow that derive from non-sewage sources including groundwater or stormwater that enters from deficiencies in the pipe network (cracks, loose joints, leaky manholes), connections from private property (downspouts, foundation drains, other drains), and/or cross-connections from the storm drainage system.

Separated Sewer System Two distinct wastewater collection systems designed to convey sanitary dry weather flow independently from all other forms of storm flow, to the greatest extent possible. Depending on time of construction and the Sewer Use By-Law in effect at that time, foundation drains could be connected to either the sanitary or storm sewers in a separated system, or discharge to the surface via sump pump.

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx vii


Combined Sewer System A wastewater collection system designed to convey both sanitary wastewater and stormwater runoff through a single conveyance pipe to the wastewater treatment plant.

Partially-Separated Sewer System

Consists of a combined sewer where the road and surface storm drainage have been removed to a dedicated storm sewer, however still receives municipal sewage as well as foundation drains and some driveway drains. These systems typically are found in older subdivisions prior to the introduction of fully separated systems.

Stormwater Outfall The discharge point of a stormwater collection system, typically to a surface drainage feature, watercourse or water body such as a stormwater management pond or Lake Ontario.

Flow Diversion / Regulator A flow control structure such as a weir, orifice or gate, that diverts, overflows or bypasses flows from a sewer system to relieve an overloaded sewer and protect against basement flooding. Often associated with a Combined Sewer Overflow.

Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO)

A discharge to the environment from a combined sewer system that usually occurs as a result of a precipitation event (rainfall and/or snowmelt) when the capacity of the interceptor sewer at a regulator or treatment plant is exceeded. It consists of a mixture of wastewater and stormwater runoff.

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO)

A discharge to the environment from a sanitary sewer system that usually occurs as a result of a blockage or precipitation event (rainfall and/or snowmelt), or power/back-up power failure at a pump station, when the capacity of a sanitary sewer or wastewater pump station is exceeded.

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx viii

DRAFT CITY OF TORONTO INFOWORKS CS BASEMENT FLOODING MODEL STUDIES GUIDELINE

Introduction Version 1.02 - October 2014

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The City of Toronto drainage system is expansive and complex. Toronto Water is tasked with managing and maintaining the underground assets in response to aging infrastructure, development pressures, and the impact of wet weather flow extremes. In response, the City has selected the InfoWorks CS modelling platform by Innovyze to assist in the evaluation and assessment of the drainage collection systems, including the interaction with the surface drainage network. As a result, the City through internal and third party consultants, routinely undertakes hydrologic/hydraulic modelling assignments for portions of the City. Therefore, a consistent approach and application of “Common Modelling Principles” is needed to facilitate seamless review by all parties, and to help potential integration of developed sub-models.

1.1 PURPOSE AND INTENT

This purpose of this document is to serve as an InfoWorks CS modelling guideline for Basement Flooding projects in the City of Toronto. It is intended that all practitioners performing InfoWorks modeling for the City of Toronto do so in a consistent manner in terms of study approach, general methodology, model set-up/structure, and documentation. This Guideline therefore provides a detailed InfoWorks CS model development approach and methodology for basement flooding studies at the Environmental Assessment (EA) and Detailed Design/Implementation stages, which are focused on local sewer and surface drainage systems. This will help to ensure there is a common approach to all future modeling activities, a consistent means of documentation both internally and external to the model, and a minimum set of modeling principles universally applied such that future users can easily interpret and use any basement flooding model developed for the City.

This is meant to be a minimum standard, but not to stifle innovation or improvements on methodology and approaches from City staff or consultants undertaking Basement Flooding projects. Practitioners must discuss any recommended changes to the methodologies presented herein with Toronto Water staff at the on-set of their assignments, to explore potential implementation and possible adoption into the evolving guidelines.

It is acknowledged that this document is not currently exhaustive, and future versions are expected to provide further coverage beyond the current Basement Flooding scope. Topics such as lumped Trunk Sewer Modelling, for example, will be adapted as required in future versions of this document.

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx 1.1


Data Collection Version 1.02 - October 2014

2.0 DATA COLLECTION

Data collection and management provide the foundation for the modelling process and all subsequent system assessments. The required data is collected via both desktop and physically in the field. The practitioner shall geospatially record all collected field data and photographs, which shall be returned to the City as a geodatabase with the metadata structure outlined in Appendix D. The purpose of the data collection phase is to determine if a suitable amount of data already exists for proper model development and calibration, or whether additional information is required.

The user should be aware that any data collected may be shared with the public under the Municipal Freedom of Information Act.

2.1 DESKTOP COLLECTION

Much of the data necessary to describe the physical characteristics of the Study Area is available in a format suitable for viewing in GIS. The following outlines the standard available data, depending on study scope. It should be acknowledged that the quality and accuracy of any provided data must be confirmed by the proponent for use in the study. See Appendix A-1 for a check-list to be submitted alongside project documentation.

2.1.1 Base GIS Layers

Study Area specific ArcGIS layers shall be provided by WIM, and may include, but not be limited to the following:

• Parcel Fabric with Land Use Designation • Address Points with Water Billing Records • Population (current and projected) • Orthoimagery • Digital Elevation Model (DEM) • Topographic Contours (0.5m) • Building Footprint Polygon • Road Centreline Polyline • Reported Flooding Locations for Assessment, Design or other storm events • Watercourse, TRCA Floodplain • Other

2.1.2 Sewer Asset Geodatabase

WIM maintains a digital inventory of physical storm, sanitary and combined sewer network assets, which includes:




• Manholes and Junctions • Sewers • Catchbasins and Leads (where available) • Outfalls • Special Structures (orifice, weir, sluice gate, etc., where available) • Pump Stations

It is acknowledged that GIS asset data for Special Structures and Pump Stations is not always well defined, and that additional drawing review, operator interview and/or field investigation may be required to supplement missing/uncertain information.

2.1.3 Operations and Maintenance Data

District Operations records may include:

• Historic Basement Flooding Records • Historic Hansen Work Order Logs • CCTV Records from the Past 10 Years • Smoke/Dye Testing Reports/Results • Recent Sewer Improvement Works • Rain and Sewer Monitoring Data • Pump Station records • Wastewater Treatment Plant Operational Data • Miscellaneous Investigations

2.1.4 Flow Monitoring Information

Information on past rain or sewer flow monitoring programs, which may include:

• Rain Gauge Locations layer • Rain Gauge depth time series • Flow Monitor Locations Information • Flow Monitoring flow, depth and velocity time series (where available) • Additional flow monitoring documentation (which pipe, field notes, service area delineation,

additional reporting) • CSO Records

2.1.5 Other Supporting Data

Supplemental background documentation, which may include:

• Previous Studies (pdf or hard copy) • Geotechnical Reports or Data, including the historic Golder Borehole Database • Planning Reports/Information for New Development and/or Redevelopment




• Drain card information to determine foundation drain connection status • Planned or recently constructed pipe upgrades • EA Projects and Assignments

2.2 FIELD SURVEY

A critical component is collection of physical field data to support and ground-truth the desktop analysis. Inspect the entire Study Area to confirm characteristics that will assist with modelling and record photographs of various points of interest for future reference. Data must be submitted in a geodatabase format, as per the requirements outlined in Appendix D. Typically, the field program should consist of at least the items outlined in the following sections. At the onset of any EA assignment, discussion with the City on the extent of field work shall be documented with Form A-2 in Appendix A, which shall also be used to track receipt of the corresponding geodatabase feature classes for the digitized field results.

2.2.1 Address Survey

Purpose: To view each residential property from the curb to document:

• Downspout connectivity • Possibility of downspout disconnection • Downspout discharge location • Reverse driveway • Poor lot grading • Flat roof • Road ditch drainage

This information supports the storm drainage subcatchment and overland network definition.

2.2.2 Catchbasin Survey

Purpose: To confirm how it corresponds with the number, location and type of catchbasins in the City’s Asset Database, and to characterize:

• Type (single/twin/sag) • Grate Style

See Section 5.2.2.1 for typical catchbasin grate styles.

The information will be used to support the modelling parameterization of the storm drainage network, including the number of inlets (i.e. gullies) and the corresponding head-discharge table to be used. The information will also be reported back to the City in geodatabase format to update the catchbasin asset data (see Appendix D).




2.2.3 Maintenance Hole Cover Survey

Purpose: To check for perforated covers with an emphasis on locations within overland flow paths (particularly at low points), and confirm correspondence with the asset database. These cover types may be included in the model where critical to an assessment as necessary in discussion with the City, with the corresponding gully inlet head-discharge table (see Section 5.2.2.1), and will be reported back to the City in the geodatabase format outlined in Appendix D. These maintenance hole covers are typically found in combined sewer areas and can be found in areas with partially separated sewers and in some sanitary sewer areas.

2.2.4 Low Point Survey

Purpose: To confirm location, potential ponding depth, and direction of overflow of critical low-lying areas subject to water accumulation. This data is used to support the development of the overland network and understanding.

2.2.5 Outfall/Surface Drainage Structure Survey

Purpose: To document physical attributes and field conditions of each sewer outfall and associated surface drainage infrastructure such as culverts, headwalls, drainage ditches. Information to be inventoried includes:

• Inlets/Headwalls − Type (Endwall/Headwall/Free Outlet) − Shape and Measured Dimensions − Culvert Material and Number of Barrels − Structural Condition and Blockage/Submergence

• Downstream Channel Conditions (Material/Lining, signs of erosion) • Parks/Open Areas (dry ponds, trapped low areas, overland routes, etc.) • Parking Lot Potential Storage, and New Development (to be considered in consultation with

the City as necessary) • Extent of overland drainage feature - Identify where and if it outlets into the collection

system • Extent of ditch network and outlet location

The information will be used to confirm the asset geodatabase and to establish the boundary conditions of the combined and storm drainage outfalls. It will also support the proper coding of surface drainage infrastructure interaction with the minor system (e.g. culverts, inlets). The outfall survey will be returned to the City in both a geodatabase format and summary table with photographs.




2.2.6 Resident Questionnaire

Purpose: To gather additional information regarding downspout and sump pump connectivity, history of flooding, source or nature of past flood waters, and other notable observations related to surface and basement flooding. This data shall be georeferenced to the Address point feature class and Hansen records. Refer to the specific requirements of the RFP regarding the preparation of the Questionnaire, which shall be undertaken in consultation with WIM and the City’s Public Consultation Unit.

2.2.7 Field Chamber/Facility Inspections

Purpose: To collect field information and measurements on chambers identified to contain special structures, chambers identified through the network engineering validation process to be of interest, or pump station facilities. Field survey of chambers would typically require confined space entry to collect measurements, photos and field inspection sheet. Chambers/facilities inspected should be clearly identified (geodatabase) and a summary of notes, photos, etc. provided to the City.



Data Assessment and Gap Analysis Version 1.02 - October 2014

3.0 DATA ASSESSMENT AND GAP ANALYSIS

3.1 DATA QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Determine the completeness of the modelling data sets, both in terms of physical node-link development, and availability/suitability of flow monitoring data for model calibration and validation.

The model is based on the node and link representations of the sewer systems. Initial data quality checks shall include completeness of coverage, and identification of data gaps, based on the provided asset geodatabase from the City.

3.1.1 Asset Data Coverage

The definition of the project study area is critical, and should be established early in the data collection phase. There are four (4) contributing drainage area definitions to be considered:

1. Sanitary Sewer Collection System

2. Storm (Minor) System

3. Combined Sewer Collection System

4. Overland (Major) System

Digitally define the study area drainage boundaries and the extent of the sewer systems to be modelled considering all bifurcation potential, overflow locations, topographic relief, pump stations, and special hydraulic structures. For the overland network, consideration must be given to the contributions from adjacent collection systems where the major system does not coincide with its minor system. These ‘external’ areas can be modelled at a lower level of detail (i.e. lumped macro-level subcatchments) with sufficient detail provided to represent the impact of theoretical contribution to the Study Area in question. See Section 6.1.2 for additional information.

Review the provided data in GIS, InfoNet, or InfoWorks CS to determine the spatial extent of the provided dataset to confirm all tributary pipes for each system type are present, or to determine gaps in the coverage. A GIS map of the required coverage shall be prepared and submitted to the City alongside a detailed request outlining the system type and justification should additional asset data coverage be required for the Study Area.




3.1.2 Asset Data Gaps

Attribute data of the provided asset geodatabase shall be reviewed for missing or zero entries of critical model-building fields. A summary table must be prepared identifying the percentage of zero or missing data entries for each system type as follows:

Parameter Structure Type

Number of Records

Number of Missing or Zero Values % Missing

Upstream ID

Sewer Line

Downstream ID

Diameter

Pipe Cross-Section Shape

Upstream Invert

Downstream Invert

Ground Elevation Manhole

The result of this initial review will help determine the extent to which additional engineering validation will be required (see Section 3.2).

3.1.3 Flow Monitoring and Rainfall Data

Flow monitoring and rainfall data provides the basis for model calibration and validation exercises, and therefore the suitability of coverage and data quality are paramount to the successful development of a hydrologic/hydraulic model for basement flooding.

Level, velocity and flow data along with rain gauge data received from the City shall be reviewed in detail, and the initial analytical processing of the data shall be documented for each monitor and rain gauge. Refer to Appendix C for a detailed description of the flow monitoring data analytical requirements expected by the City. The result of the evaluation will determine the suitability of the provided data in terms of data quality (inconsistent data, poor scatterplot, significance of gaps/drop-outs, etc.), and identify any gaps in the coverage per system type. The practitioner is responsible for assessing the reasonableness of the available data for model calibration, and shall identify and justify in writing to the City, any need for additional monitoring coverage.

3.2 ENGINEERING VALIDATION

Engineering Validation is the process of identifying and resolving network asset data errors, inconsistencies and gaps, including missing or erroneous data and pipe connectivity issues. InfoWorks CS has a built-in Engineering Validation tool to assist with the establishment of data gaps/inconsistencies, which can be used to document and flag gaps to be reviewed. These data assessments may be conducted outside the modelling environment (such as GIS or




InfoNet), however as part of the Baseline Condition model submitted to the City, an Engineering Validation field (User-Defined Text Field 4) shall be populated with an indicator of the validation error(s). See Section 4.0 for Model Documentation requirements, and Section 3.3 for the data rectification procedure and documentation. The following provides a sample InfoWorks CS Engineering Validation check.

In addition, user-defined queries can be used in InfoWorks CS or GIS to supplement this engineering validation, as demonstrated at right for identifying and selecting inconsistent profiles.

At a minimum, the following issues shall be identified:

• Connectivity errors (missing pipes, maintenance holes, incorrect ID references, reversed pipe direction, dead-end pipes)

• Blind sewer connection (where sewers connect to sewers without a corresponding node asset structure)

• Adverse/flat/steep slope • Inconsistent profile (i.e. incorrect inverts or

diameter) • Pipe invert or obvert (soffit) above ground • Flow type (combined vs. sanitary vs. storm) • Bifurcation or ‘Split’ pipes to confirm elevations • Status (active vs. abandoned)

Tracing tools and 3-D viewing in InfoWorks should be used to confirm the presence of pipe connectivity issues.




3.3 DATA RECTIFICATION PROCEDURE AND DOCUMENTATION

3.3.1 Initial Asset Data Import into InfoWorks CS

To maintain consistency in the model environment, asset data shall initially be imported into InfoWorks CS with the field mapping identified below. Each geodatabase feature class shall be imported as necessary into the model, and may be preprocessed in GIS prior to importation.

Parameter City Asset Field Name InfoWorks CS Object Field Units

Nodes (manholes, junctions, catchbasins, outfalls, large chambers, etc.).

Node ID ASSET_ID Node ID & Asset ID -

Ground Elevation TOP_ELEV Ground Level m

Year of Construction CONST_YR User Number 1 -

Depth of MH DEPTH User Number 2 m

Structure Type STRUC_TYPE User Text 1 -

Drawing Reference SOURCE_ENG User Text 3 -

City Asset Comments COMMENTS Notes -

Sewer Pipes (sewers, special structures, trunk sewers, etc.)

Pipe ID ASSET_ID Asset ID -

Upstream Node Asset ID UP_ASSET_I US Node ID m

Downstream Node Asset ID DN_ASSET_I DS Node ID m

Pipe Width* WIDTH Width mm

Pipe Height* HEIGHT Height mm

Pipe Material MATERIAL Conduit Material -

Pipe Shape PIPE_SHAPE Shape ID -

Upstream Invert INVERT_UP US Invert Level m

Downstream Invert INVERT_DN DS Invert Level m

Year of Construction CONST_YR User Number 1 -

Pipe Length LENGTH User Number 2 m

Pipe Slope SLOPE_PERC User Number 3 m/m

Drop Pipe Invert DROP_INVER User Number 4 m

Street Reference ADDR_QUAL User Text 1 -

Drawing Reference SOURCE_ENG User Text 2 -

Engineering Validation Check Blank Field User Text 3 -

Engineering Validation Fix Blank Field User Text 4 -

City Asset Comments COMMENTS Notes -

* Review values for non-circular dimensions and re-orient to appropriate height and width fields as needed.




The User Fields shall be used as a reference for the engineering validation process, and once documented can be re-designated for the next stages of the GeoPlan development/use.

It is recommended that each system type be imported and validated separately. In the case of combined systems, the validated models should be merged into a common GeoPlan for further validation. For each importation, the following should be completed:

• Confirm the number of records imported.

• Record any Importation Errors which should be reviewed to confirm the nature of the errors and any issues with the importation process that need to be rectified.

• Ensure imported units and field formats match those of InfoWorks, and Group Edit as required (e.g. Shape ID format or diameter units).

3.3.1.1 Blind Connections

The City’s geodatabase now has a feature class called “Connection_Node”, that identifies the location and ID of most blind connections, denoted with a “CN” prefix. The sewer’s downstream ID field will reference this “CN” ID to complete the sewer network creation.

3.3.2 Data Rectification Procedure

1. Once the data has been successfully imported into InfoWorks, conduct the

model “validate” routine to create a list of model connectivity errors/issues. These shall be resolved before advancing to the Engineering Validation process (if not already completed outside the model).

2. Use the Tracing Tools - Connectivity option to identify isolated or disconnected networks

3. Based on review of tributary areas (Section 3.1.1), if not already completed outside the model environment, simplify by removing network objects that are outside the modeled study area.

4. Engineering Validation routines presented in Section 3.2 should be run, with the results of the errors/issues documented in User Text 3: Engineering Validation Check. If validation has been completed external to the model, import into User Text 3. Practitioners are encouraged to use a standardized input into User Text 3 (group edit) to aid in sorting




data, however it is understood that some assets will have multiple issues. Therefore record the primary issue and supplement as necessary in the element Notes Field. A basic standardized list includes:

• Missing Invert(s) • Missing Diameter • Missing Inverts and Diameter • Inconsistent Profile - Inverts (downstream higher than downstream) • Inconsistent Profile - Diameter (downstream smaller than upstream) • Pipe Above Ground • Disconnected - Node / Pipe • Slope - Adverse (<0%) • Slope - Flat (0%) • Slope - Steep (>5%) • Inconsistent System Type • Missing Ground Elevation • Bifurcation Node

5. Visually examine each longitudinal profile to further identify suspicious drops/slopes.

6. Develop a data rectification priority ranking based on severity of the error and proximity or potential hydraulic impact relative to recorded flooding complaints. The practitioner is responsible for identifying the appropriate means for rectifying data errors and issues, and shall develop a list for each element and the recommended source for closure, which will be made available to the City upon request. The preferred priority of data rectification sources is presented below, where As-Built drawings are considered the first source of data checks. Should discrepancies exist in multiple As-Built drawings, the more recent year shall take precedence unless other information suggests otherwise. Field Investigation recommendations shall be confirmed with the City.

7. User Text 4 (Engineering Validation Fix) and the Notes tab shall be used to record the method of data correction, or to identify major assumptions/warnings for the input.

8. Data flags shall be used to identify both Engineering Validation checks and sources of data fixes following the convention outlined in Section 4.6.

9. The Drawing Reference (User Text 2) shall be updated, and flagged As-built or As-Designed as appropriate.




The following graphics demonstrate the procedure.



InfoWorks File Management and Set-Up Version 1.02 - October 2014

4.0 INFOWORKS FILE MANAGEMENT AND SET-UP

Standards of practice for acceptable modelling include good file management and documentation. This section outlines specific IW model management practices for versioning, GeoPlan development, internal naming conventions, data flagging, and element documentation.

4.1 VERSIONING

1. InfoWorks CS is periodically updated and from time-to-time new releases are made available. Versions greater than or equal to 15.0 shall be used for all Toronto Flooding Modelling activities, and the proponent shall confirm with the City at the on-set of each project which version is to be used.

2. It is preferred that the InfoWorks CS version used to generate the calibrated model and subsequent Baseline Condition simulations be maintained throughout the duration of the assignment, at the discretion of City staff.

3. Unless otherwise directed, older models received for Detailed Design implementation assignments shall be updated to the latest version.

4.2 CATCHMENT GROUP HIERARCHY

The Catchment Group is a collection of all model elements including networks (GeoPlans) and all supporting Groups used in the simulation and analysis of the collection system. The following outlines the preferred Catchment hierarchy, which apply to the final model returned to the City.

Catchment Group Description

EA Stage

Import/Validation The initial model build per network type

Calibration Calibration and validation changes to the network

Baseline Conditions Baseline Existing and Future Growth Conditions

Alternatives EA Alternative Solutions Model

Preferred Solution Final EA Preferred Solution Model

Detailed Design Stage

Preliminary Design Design modifications at the preliminary design phase

Final Design Final Design modification

A “Master Group” shall be set-up for each Modelling Assignment, with each Catchment Group as a subset, as demonstrated in the screen capture below.




Within each parent Catchment Group, a collection of specific Networks and Groups can be maintained specific to each major task, described in the next sections. The returned InfoWorks Compact Transportable Database model shall have all associated Catchments and Groups, along with supporting Description fields populated, required to reproduce the model results. Due to file size, model results will not be submitted directly to the City.

4.3 NETWORK MANAGEMENT

As models are developed, several GeoPlan networks result from the Checking-In and Checking-Out process. It is recommended that a modelling hierarchy be enacted to provide a basic level of consistency at the “Parent” scales for models developed for the City, acknowledging that there will be several “Child” versions of models as they are developed and checked-in to the Master Database. Only final versions of the GeoPlans are required for submission to the City for the key model milestones as identified in Section 4.2.

For models with multiple systems as separate GeoPlans, it is preferred that certain common model groups (see Section 4.4) be maintained within the Master Catchment Group, to avoid duplication of elements. This primarily applies to Ground Model Groups, Rainfall Groups and Theme Groups.

Networks shall be documented within the Description Field, identifying specific components of the GeoPlan, including any noteworthy changes/additions/omissions that may assist the future user in understanding from within the model environment, the contents and/or development of the network.

4.4 MODEL GROUP MANAGEMENT

IW has several “Groups” which are required for data input. A list of standard groups and their purpose is provided below. To aid in network management, common Groups such as Ground Model, Rainfall, and Theme, should be maintained under the Master Catchment Group to avoid unnecessary duplication and references within the Run Groups.




Group Description Use Sample Set-Up

Engineering Validation

A series of queries used to help evaluate the model connectivity, data completeness, and fit within standard thresholds.

Use as part of the Data Rectification process

Flow Survey Recorded flow monitoring rainfall, flow, depth, and velocity data.

Use in calibration comparison plots of observed versus modelled data

Graph Graphs model results at

desired locations Use to quickly display model results at selected nodes, links or subcatchments

Graph Template

Templates for connecting observed versus simulated runs

Use in model calibration, in connection with observed Flow Survey Groups and modelled Simulation Runs.

Ground Infiltration

Calculates water volume changes in the soil storage, and applies water to the subcatchments once the soil storage has reached the specified threshold.

Use to apply rainfall-dependent slow response infiltration and inflow hydrographs. Useful for varying antecedent moisture conditions.

Ground Model Grid

Terrain 3-D grid surface elevation model

Visualize surface topography and use to infer elevations.

Inference Infers data for conduit head

losses and invert elevations, and node ground elevations

Use to estimate values when no other data sources are available. Flag appropriately to indicate inferred data.

Inflow A time-varying flow data set

applied to designated nodes Used in place of sewage or runoff hydrograph input if data exist, or to provide pipe boundary conditions.

Label List Saves unique label parameterization.

Use to quickly apply pre-defined labels to network elements.

Layer List Series of unique background layer lists.

Background visualization of various layers.

Level Time-varying water level data

set applied to designated nodes.

Use to represent starting water levels or boundary conditions.




Group Description Use Sample Set-Up

Rainfall Collection of time-based rainfall hyetographs in mm/hr.

Use to apply rainfall during model runs. Save

RTC Allows the change of state of

regulator structures such as pumps, sluice gates, orifices and weirs.

Use to apply real time control logic to regulator structures based on flow or level data from elsewhere in the system.

Run Collection of model simulations, comprised of links to other Groups

Use to control simulation input and model results files.

Selection List

A saved selection of various model objects

Allows the quick selection or de-selection of network objects. Particularly useful in defining long-section profiles.

Statistics Template

A saved selection of statistical analysis for model run results

Useful for continuous simulation results analysis, identifying CSO spill frequency, duration, etc.

Stored Query

Selects and manipulates model objects according to defined criteria.

Use to create specific selection sets or use SQL syntax to adjust object field data.

Theme User defined plan view

thematics to represent input or model results.

Powerful visualization tool for use in Engineering Validation, Alternative Development, and Model Results review.

Trade Waste

Source of diurnal patterns applied to ICI usage in dry weather flow simulations.

Use for applying a diurnal pattern to large trade waste generators, that do not derive their flow from population data.

Waste Water

Source of diurnal patterns and per capita rates for sanitary dry weather flow simulations.

Use for applying population derived diurnal patterns and per capita flow rates.

4.5 NAMING CONVENTIONS

There are several model elements that are suited for standard naming conventions, which will reduce uncertainty in interpretation by future users. These include nodes, conduits, and subcatchments. In addition, network naming conventions will assist the City in managing files. The following section outlines recommended conventions to be applied for the different phases of model development/use.




4.5.1 EA Stage - Model Build

4.5.1.1 Networks

Format for submitted EA GeoPlan networks shall be as demonstrated below, where:

• A## = Basement Flooding EA Study Area Number • EA = Environmental Assessment • SYS = where separate models are created, this shall be STM or SAN

A##_EA_SYS_EngValidation Engineering Validation

A##_EA_SYS_Calibration Calibration/Validations

A##_EA_SYS_BaselineConditions Baseline Conditions used for System Evaluation

A##_EA_ SYS_FuturePopulation_20## Baseline with Future Growth Horizon Population

A##_EA_ SYS_Alternative1 Alternative 1 Final Solutions

A##_EA_ SYS_Alternative2 Alternative 2 Final Solutions

A##_EA_ SYS_PreferredSolution Final Preferred EA Solutions

A##_EA_SYS_PreferredSolution_20## Final Preferred Solutions with Future Growth Horizon

Should additional clarification of the submitted networks be required in the name, this can be added as a suffix separated by an underscore and kept to a minimum length. The Description field of the network MUST provide complete details of the network composition and assumptions, as outlined in Section 10.1.

4.5.1.2 Conduits

• Minor system: Suffix shall be the default *.1, and where multiple pipes leave a common node, each subsequent Suffix ID shall increase from 1.

• Overland System: Suffix shall be alphabetic starting at *.O, with each subsequent Suffix ID increasing from O (e.g. P, Q, R, S) for multiple conduits with common upstream node.

4.5.1.3 New Dummy Nodes (non-roofs)

Where fictitious “Dummy” nodes are required for representing overland high/low points, culvert inlets/outlets, etc., the following shall be used: “D”+“First 5 digits of X-coordinate”+”First 5 digits of Y-coordinate”. The accuracy of the x-y is not critical, but the above guarantees no duplicate ID’s will be created or conflict if multiple study are models are merged.




4.5.1.4 Subcatchments

• Subcatchment IDs shall default to the name of their receiving node.

• Where multiple subcatchments drain to the same node, a “_#” suffix shall be applied, increasing numerically from 1.

• Where a lumped subcatchment has been used for external contributions, a “EXT_” prefix shall be used.

• Sanitary subcatchment representing future growth population alone shall use a “FUT_” prefix.

• For subcatchments devoted to Roof drainage, see Section 4.5.1.5.

4.5.1.5 Roof Subcatchments, Nodes and Links

Roof nodes are described in Section 5.5.1 while subcatchments are presented in Section 6.1. Roof elements shall be named to reference their connectivity status (connected vs. disconnected), and their type (sloped vs. flat) as follows:

• Roof nodes shall have the same ID as the receiving node of the parent subcatchment, with an identifying prefix:

o Directly-connected Sloped Roofs = “Rc_”

o Directly-connected Flat Roofs = “FRc_”

o Disconnected Flat Roofs = “FRd_”

• Roof subcatchments shall have the same name as the roof node.

• Roof lateral links shall use an “L” suffix.

4.5.1.6 New Nodes and Conduits for EA Alternative Solutions

New conduits that have been added to reflect proposed solutions shall use the following:

• Node ID for each new or relocated node shall be established using the built-in Node Name Generation routine in InfoWorks, with the custom pattern “ALT-A##-{C4321}”, where ALT = alternative, A## = the study area number, and {C4321} generates an automatic sequential number, as demonstrated below:




• Node and Conduit Asset ID to be left blank.

• Conduit Link Suffix shall be alphabetic starting at *.A, with each subsequent Suffix ID increasing from A (e.g. B, C, D) for multiple conduits with common upstream node.

• As per Section 4.8, the User Text 3 field shall indicate the Type of Alternative Solution (e.g. Minor System Upgrade, Major System Conveyance, Major System Storage, Sanitary Upgrade, etc.), and all new data fields shall be flagged with the AA (Alternative) flag (see Section 4.6).

• Final EA Alternatives shall be flagged as “EA” in all edited data fields, with the corresponding EA Project ID input into User Text Field 4 (see Section 4.8).

4.5.2 Detailed Design Stage

4.5.2.1 Networks

Format for submitted Design GeoPlan networks shall be as demonstrated below, where:

• A## = Basement Flooding EA Study Area Number

• AssignmentID = Implementation Assignment ID Reference

• SYS = where separate models are created, this shall be STM or SAN




A##-AssignmentID_SYS_Design_EABaseline EA Baseline Model Verification

A##-AssignmentID_SYS_Design_EAVerification EA Preferred Solution Verification

A##-AssignmentID_SYS_Design_ProposedDesign Preliminary Design Modification

A##-AssignmentID_SYS_Design_FinalMOE Final Design Modification

Should additional clarification of the submitted networks be required in the name, this can be added as a suffix separated by an underscore and kept to a minimum length. The Description field MUST provide complete details of the network composition and assumptions, as outlined in Section 10.1.

4.5.2.2 New Nodes and Conduits for Design

New conduits that have been added to reflect the final solutions shall use the following:

• Node ID for each new or relocated MH structure shall have the following form during design:

o “Assignment ID”_”SystemType”-”Number” (e.g. A29-09_ST-01; A32-16B_SA-01)

o The key is to prevent duplicate ID’s from occurring when models are merged.

• The Final Design model Asset ID should match the final design drawing ID, while the Node ID reference shall remain unique.

• Conduit Asset ID to be populated with “NEW” to indicate an Asset ID will need to be created in the future for this link, once constructed.

• Conduit Link Suffix shall be numeric starting at *.1, with each subsequent Suffix ID increasing from 1 for multiple conduits with common upstream node.

• As per Section 4.8, User Text 3 field shall indicate Type of Solution (e.g. Minor System Upgrade, Major System Conveyance, Major System Storage, Sanitary Upgrade, etc.), and all new or modified data fields shall be flagged with the FD (Final Design) flag.

• Implementation Assignment and Project ID shall be input into User Text Field 4.

4.5.3 Development Application Review

4.5.3.1 Networks

It is acknowledged that models will evolve over time in terms of on-going asset renewal in the collection system, and from internal/external use in support of various ‘what-if’ scenarios such as




development applications). The City is devising an internal naming convention to account for these various future modifications to the EA and design submission models.

4.6 DATA FLAGGING

Data flags are an extremely important tool to record and track the basis of assumptions, changes, and data sources made to all critical modelling fields. The following must be used as part of the model submissions to the City. Other flags must be prior approved by the City.

InfoWorks Standard Data Flags Flag Description Color (RGB)

#A Imported Asset Data from City Geodatabase. Used to represent fields that were brought in directly from the asset geodatabase.

Light green, 200/240/200

#D Model Default Data. To indicate when a value is defined by a default or in the case of Length, is automatically calculated. Light blue, 166/202/240

#G Data from GeoPlan. Used when values are calculated within InfoWorks based on background layers (population, area take-off, etc.)

Bright Green, 80/240/120

#I Model Import – imported from another model Light Orange, 29/206/141

#V CSV Import – imported from an outside data source through CSV Orange, 20/240/120

AB As-Built Archived Drawing Source. Where a historic engineering drawing indicates the information is as-recorded or as-built.

Light Orange, 255/210/165

AD As-Designed Archived Drawing Source. Where a historic engineering drawing is not labelled as as-recorded or as-built.

Light Purple, 150/150/200

AA EA Alternative Additions/Modifications Light Grey, 218/218/218

AS Assumed data - no reference; dummy placeholder in non-critical areas Red, 255/50/50

CA Parameter adjusted during model calibration, not attributed to another source. e.g. Mannings ‘n’, impervious surface adjustments, etc. Yellow, 255/255/0

EA EA Preferred Solution Green, 115/255/115

EV Engineering Validation Error Light Red, 200/175/175

FD Final Design - Implementation Project Drawing Light Purple, 200/150/255

FP Future Population - EA growth scenarios, development review, etc. Purple, 128/0/255

IF Information Only - used to flag notes field Cyan, 187/255/255

IN Inferred or interpolated Data Magenta, 240/135/252

OD Observed Field Data - Not surveyed; Includes orthoimagery, GoogleMaps/StreetView, photographs, site reconnaissance etc. Blue, 100/150/255

OV Overland Flow Green, 10/255/10

PD Preliminary Design Additions/Modifications Light Green, 140/255/140

RF Roof - additions/modifications related to simulating roof runoff Light Yellow, 255/255/128

SD Surveyed Field Data, includes geodetic, laser, tape Turquoise, 0/255/255




4.7 SIMULATION PARAMETERS

4.7.1 Time Step Selection

The default time step used will be 60 seconds with a 5x multiplier for reporting (i.e. 5 minutes). A more refined time step or reporting multiplier may be required should there be model instabilities for convergence at specific locations. A Timestep Log file (from the Diagnostics button in the Schedule Hydraulic Run dialogue) should be created and reviewed to identify those objects in the model that indicate instability issues.

4.7.2 Simulation Parameter Defaults

For complex integrated dual drainage hydraulic models, the default simulation parameters found under the Network tab may have to be adjusted to provide more stable results. Any changes must be documented and reviewed with the City.




4.8 ELEMENT DOCUMENTATION

All model elements have five User Text and five User Number Fields to be used to track object documentation and sources of model-build assumptions and status. InfoWorks has the ability to customize the labels of these fields to ensure end-users can easily interpret the content of the field. In addition, each object has a dedicated Notes field available in the form view.

Given the variability of model development activities and uses of the model, the following shall be the minimum standard User Fields to be returned to the City for each main Phase of the model use (Baseline EA, Design). Additionally, the Notes tab shall be used to supplement the User Fields where necessary.

EA BASELINE MODEL USER-DEFINED FIELDS

User Field Node Heading Conduit Heading

User Number 1 No. of Initial Street CBs Year of Construction

User Text 1 Street Reference Street Reference

User Text 2 Drawing Reference Drawing Reference

User Text 3 Engineering Validation Check Engineering Validation Check

User Text 4 Engineering Validation Fix Engineering Validation Fix

User Text 5 Model Notes Model Notes

The EA Baseline model is used to define the characteristics of the system, and the user text helps document the confidence of every data entry for each element. Some of this data is imported from the asset geodatabase, supplemented by User Text 3 to document potential input/profile/continuity errors in the network, and User Text 4 the resolution of that error alongside any additional notes that would be of assistance during the alternative development stage.

For the final EA Preferred Solution and Design Models, the fields change to support documentation of the solution elements including the reference EA Project or Assignment ID and solution type. The node User Numbers document key assumptions related to the change in number of catchbasins assigned through the progression from existing, to conceptual design, to detailed design.




EA PREFERRED SOLUTION / DESIGN MODEL USER-DEFINED FIELDS

User Field Node Heading Conduit Heading

User Number 1 No. of Initial Street CBs U/S Pipe Cover (m)

User Number 2 EA Change in Street CBs D/S Pipe Cover (m)

User Number 3 Survey No. of Street CBs -

User Number 4 Design Change in Street CBs -

User Number 5 Design Change in Total Inlet Capacity (L/s) -

User Text 1 Street Reference Street Reference

User Text 2 Drawing Reference Drawing Reference

User Text 3 Solution Type Solution Type

User Text 4 EA Project/Assignment ID EA Project/Assignment ID

User Text 5 Model Notes Model Notes

Each user field shall be flagged, according to the guidelines outlined in Section 4.6.

4.9 MODEL VISUALIZATION STANDARDS

In an effort to normalize the model ‘experience’ by all users, the City has adopted the following model visualization standards for the GeoPlan.

4.9.1 Coordinate System

InfoWorks CS has the ability to identify the coordinate system to be used for the geospatial display and export of network objects. To avoid projection issues between the model elements and GIS, and to facilitate new model element creation, the following coordinate system shall be used as the main display for InfoWorks models. Confirmation of the projected coordinate system should be done at the onset of each modelling assignment.




Older City models and some GIS data may require adjustment to align with the current coordinate system, as the Y-coordinate was often simplified to remove 4,000,000 from the value. Older InfoWorks models defined without the 4 million can be Geographically Adjusted in InfoWorks as follows, to align with newer GIS layers.




4.9.2 Network Objects

The main network objects shall be colour-coded by each of the 5 system types as follows:

System Type

Colour (R/G/B)

Nodes and Conduits Subcatchments

Storm Green, 0/244/0 Light Green, 200/255/200

Sanitary Red, 255/0/0 Light Red, 255/200/200

Combined Orange, 255/128/0 Light Orange, 255/220/185

Overland Brown, 128/64/0 Light Brown, 200/150/150

Other Olive, 128/128/0 Gold, 210/210/0

4.9.3 Results Themes

Model results within the GeoPlan reveal the overall performance of the system during model simulations. GeoPlan Themes allow colour-coding of various parameters for each model object type, as demonstrated below.




The following shall be the base template for visualization of common model results.

Model Object Type Description SQL Range Colour

Node HGL Freeboard (m) ground_level - sim.depnod

• -20 • 0 • 1.8

• Red • Yellow • Green

Node Contour Overland Depth (m) sim.ovdepnod - ground_level

• 0 • 0.15 • 0.30

• Green • Yellow • Red

Conduit Surcharge State -

• 0.8 • 1.0 • 2.0

• Green • Yellow • Red

4.9.4 Profile “Long-Section” View

Model Profiles are an excellent means of reviewing data inconsistencies and performance of model simulations. The following base information shall form the template for any profile imagery documentation associated with EA studies.




Network Object Field Description

Sanitary Nodes • ground_level • depnod • HGL Freeboard SQL

• Ground Level (m) • Sewer Water Level HGL (m) • Depth from Ground to HGL (m)

Additional Storm/ Combined Nodes

• head_discharge_id • n_gullies • Overland Depth SQL • gllyflow

• Head Discharge Table • Number of Gully Inlets • Depth of Overland Flow at Node (m) • Gully Flow (m3/s)

All Conduits • length • Shape • width • height • us inv • ds inv • grad • pfc • ds_flow • surc

• Pipe length (m) • Pipe shape type • Pipe width (mm) • Pipe height (mm) • US invert elevation (m) • DS invert elevation (m) • Pipe gradient (m/m) • Pipe full capacity (m3/s) • Downstream Flow (m3/s) • Surcharge State

Sanitary System Profile

63

4097

0090

63

131

4093

4091

22

206

4095

5091

94

278

4100109009175.560172.6602.899951

4097009063175.118172.5242.594181

4093409122174.758172.3912.367070

4095509194174.411172.2202.191121

4097609263174.920172.064

2.855638

4100109009.162.8CIRC450450

172.284172.1460.002200.134

0.137910.84

4097009063.168.0CIRC450450

172.136171.9130.003280.163

0.134841.00

4093409122.175.2CIRC450450

171.888171.6900.002630.146

0.126531.00

4095509194.171.9CIRC450450

171.680171.4550.003130.159

0.127211.00

Nodeground (m AD)level (m AD)expr:HGL Freeboard

Linklength (m)Shape IDwidth (mm)height (mm)us inv (m AD)ds inv (m AD)grad (m/m)pfc (m3/s)DS Flow (m3/s)surc

m A

D

171.0

176.0

171.5

172.0

172.5

173.0

173.5

174.0

174.5

175.0

175.5

m




Minor System Profile

Major System Profile

5141

9490

9308

138

4195409359182.070SAG STORAGE2.000179.1760.213202.8937460.215034

4194909308182.143CB_FLAT

4.000178.0410.082814.1024570.140615

4186909342181.929

MH Cover (2 holes)1.000

176.8740.00101

5.0552360.120332

4195409359.151.2CIRC750750

178.765177.4970.024771.752

0.942430.73

4194909308.187.0CIRC750750

177.497176.2750.014041.319

1.043590.80

Nodeground (m AD)Head Discharge TableNumber of Gullieslevel (m AD)gully flow (m3/s)expr:HGL Freeboardexpr:Overland Depth


m A

D

176.0

176.5

177.0

177.5

178.0

178.5

179.0

179.5

180.0

180.5

181.0

181.5

182.0

182.5

m

51

4194

9093

08

138

4195409359182.070SAG STORAGE2.000179.1760.213202.8936540.215049

4194909308182.143CB_FLAT

4.000178.0410.082814.1024120.140615

4186909342181.929

MH Cover (2 holes)1.000

176.8740.00101

5.0550990.120332

4194909308.Q51.2

LOCAL ROADS20000300

182.143182.0700.001432.098

0.100970.72

4194909308.O87.0

LOCAL ROADS20000300

182.143181.9290.002462.755

0.556210.47

Nodeground (m AD)Head Discharge TableNumber of Gullieslevel (m AD)gully flow (m3/s)expr:HGL Freeboardexpr:Overland Depth


m A

D

176.0

176.5

177.0

177.5

178.0

178.5

179.0

179.5

180.0

180.5

181.0

181.5

182.0

182.5

m



Hydraulics (Conveyance Modelling) Version 1.02 - October 2014

5.0 HYDRAULICS (CONVEYANCE MODELLING)

This section pertains to hydraulic modelling considerations for sanitary, combined, storm and overland systems. The hydraulic principles are the same for the various network types.

This section is divided into the standard concepts, followed by detailed guidance per element.

5.1 STANDARD CONCEPTS

5.1.1 Dual Drainage Principle

The division of the urban drainage system into minor (underground) and major (overland) systems is known as “dual drainage.” The minor system is composed of the underground network of pipes designed to convey flows from typical storm events. The major system is the overland pathway of roads and natural channels that convey runoff to the minor system inlets (gullies) and carry flows beyond what the inlet capacity or minor system can handle. The graphic below demonstrates the concept.

Each sewer system is created independently with a series of links and nodes and the networks are interconnected to the overland via “gully” or inlet nodes that simulate surface water entering the underground systems. Conversely, flow can surcharge from the sewer back to the surface from these nodes. This dual drainage approach accounts for the inlet capacity




restrictions of catchbasins and maintains continuity of volume when flow surcharges the pipe system.

For all basement flooding modelling, application of the dual drainage system shall be applied unless otherwise directed by the City (for example, rural or unimproved drainage systems). Dual drainage connectivity shall consider the system types (i.e. separated, partially separated, combined, or a mixture of each). The intent shall be to have one single GeoPlan network with all sewer and surface systems represented, and interconnected for combined sewershed modeling. For completely separate sewersheds, these shall be modelled in individual storm and sanitary GeoPlans.

5.1.2 Overland Flow Paths

The overland network shall, as best as possible, be a 1-dimensional representation of the main surface flow conveyance and storage elements found in the drainage system. This shall include flow accumulation at trapped low points, and flow conveyance at overland spill points. A critical factor is the appropriate representation of system continuity. All overland links not terminating at a low point shall be continuous, such that the distribution of flow is determined by the model based on the physical network layout and simulation. The inset graphic demonstrates an example situation of a correct and incorrect depiction of the overland system.

It is recognized that 1-dimensional representation of a complex drainage system requires the application of engineering judgment, supported by topographical, digital elevation, and field survey data. Not every element of the drainage system can be represented. The goal shall be to best represent the major flow path elements that can contribute to surface flooding or impact on the underlying collection systems. The following are key elements to consider in the establishment of the overland system:




• Curb height (assumed to be 0.15 m), and the influence on flow paths/spills • Presence or absence of curb-cuts at low areas • Channel cross-section shape, dimensions and roughness • Location of intermediary high-points or low points not corresponding with an existing node • Connectivity with underground system nodes, i.e. potential for inflow or surcharge to surface • Elevation of underground system nodes when not in pavement • Ditched drainage systems where no underground sewer system exists

5.2 NODE MODELLING GUIDELINES

The main input for a node is the type, ground elevation, node flood type, manhole parameters, gully parameters, and storage/pond parameters, as demonstrated in the following graphics. These are described in the following sections.




5.2.1 Node Definition

Nodes shall be defined by the City’s Asset ID for those elements within the existing geodatabase, and new elements shall subscribe to the naming conventions outlined in Section 4.0.

There are five (5) node types used in basement flooding modelling:

Node Type Description / Application

Manhole • Default standard manhole complete with input to define the physical dimensions of the lower chamber and access shaft (height and area).

• These values affect the storage used in the simulation, and therefore require review.

• Default values for piped systems may be used, which are set based on the maximum connected pipe diameter. These values should be reviewed to confirm actual structures have a minimum 0.8 m2 area.

• Nodes identified for overland networks only (i.e. not connected to an underground sewer system), must have their chamber and shaft inverts set equal to the ground elevation, since no actual maintenance hole exists.

Break • Break nodes have no internal area and should only be used to model changes in gradient or direction within pressurized conduits (i.e. forcemains).

Storage • User-defined volume definition by stage-area relationship.

Pond • Similar to a Storage Node, except with additional fields to account for infiltration.

• Used in long-term simulations only, not in sizing of stormwater management facilities.

Outfall • Represent locations where water is lost from the simulation. Outfalls are placed at locations where water is known to exit the system such as storm outfalls, CSO outfalls, boundaries to another model or discharge to a WWTP.

• Default assumption is free discharge from an outfall. Where this does not exist, a level file must be created to simulate time-varying boundary conditions. See Section 5.7.

The ground elevation defines the top of the manhole, and will become the relative reference for basement flooding potential, therefore must be scrutinized for suitability. In addition, the node




ground elevation forms the basis of the overland flow network’s inverts. Caution must be applied when MHs connected to road overland flow paths are within the boulevard and therefore sit “above” the main roadway flow path. Here, the ground elevation may require adjustment to maintain the overland flow path, or disconnect the MH from the overland flow path. If the MH is subject to surcharge, a connection to the overland path is required.

It is acknowledged that source data for elevations at the EA stage comes from various high-level sources and therefore may not always accurately reflect real-world conditions. It is up to the modeler to satisfy themselves on the suitability of the elevation data for the modeling task. Caution should be applied at locations where road grade separation exists, such as railway underpasses, highway ramps, and other bridges.

5.2.2 Manhole Flood Type

There are 5 main flood types, as described below.

Flood Type Description / Application

Stored • For nodes that flood from elevated sewer HGL, water is retained on the surface until such time the system regains capacity. Volume is conserved.

• By default, the dimensions of the surface volume are defined by an assumed ‘flood cone’ based on the Floodable Area and Flood Depth. If this type is used, these assumptions must be checked for suitability.

• Stored nodes cannot be used if an overland conduit is connected (see Gully flood type). In this scenario, a gully node must be applied to simulate the potential for water to enter the underground sewer system (see head discharge).

Gully • A Gully node represents a flow restriction (defined by a Head Discharge Table) in or out of the node. See Section 5.2.2.1 for more detail.

• Used in the definition of dual drainage systems to restrict inflow to the underground sewer from connected Overland type conduits.

Sealed • Where no overland system is connected to the node, flood water that surcharges does not leave the system and the hydraulic grade line rises indefinitely without flooding.

• Cannot be used when connected to overland flow conduits as this type only restricts flow out of the node, not in to the node. In this scenario, a gully node with 0 gullies can simulate a sealed maintenance hole.

Lost • Flood water to the surface is lost from the system; volume is not conserved. • This flood type should not normally be used in basement flooding models.

Inlet • Similar to a gully but utilizes standard inlet relationships of the Federal Highway Administration HEC 22 Urban Drainage Manual for various inlet types. The Gully flood type shall be used for City of Toronto modeling.




5.2.2.1 Gully

A Gully represents a catchbasin where surface runoff enters the collection system. By defining a manhole’s flood type as Gully, flow accumulated on the overland surface is subject to a user-defined Head-Discharge table; conversely, water in the collection system can surcharge to the overland network, also subject to a Head-Discharge relationship. The relationship is dependent on a specified number of gullies (e.g. catchbasins or roof drains), which multiplies the potential inflow/outflow.

NOTE: Links with a system type of “overland” apply to the above-ground element and are therefore subject to the restrictions applied by the gully inlet. Links of type storm, sanitary, combined or other will bypass the gully inlet and discharge without restriction into the underground pipe. See InfoWorks CS Help file for further information.

InfoWorks can save a series of Head-Discharge relationships, and for basement flooding modelling several typical Head-Discharge relationships have been derived based on the type of inlet grating and location within the road network. Appropriate for the scale of basement flooding analyses, only characteristic relationships are required to represent catchbasins on flat roads (assumed as less than 0.5%), average slope (0.5-4%), versus steep roads (greater than or equal to 4%), versus low points (sags). Three characteristics grating types have also been devised for standard catchbasins: honeycomb, horizontal bar/fishbone, and grid style. In addition, ditch-inlets, inlet-control devices, and perforated manhole covers. These rating curves have been derived for the City based on Ministry of Transportation (MTO) Drainage Manual Design Charts (Marsalek, J., 1982) and research conducted by Townsend, Wisner and Moss (1980). The laboratory testing was limited to heads up to 0.11 m, therefore extrapolation assumed a maximum of 110% of the lab measured value and assigned to the 0.5 m stage.

The Head-Discharge relationships account for the discharge from the sewer out of the structures during surcharge with an assumed increase in capacity to 500 L/s to simulate the displacement of manhole lids once the HGL exceeds 0.5 m above the ground surface. Guidance on the application of inlet-control devices is provided in Section 8.1.1. Should additional grating types, curb-inlets, and/or road gradients be considered, the head-discharge tables shall be documented and submitted for review and approval by Toronto Water staff before application.

It is the intent to distribute the catchbasin types appropriately to each node location within the model. Low points (sags) are critical areas in the establishment of overland ponding and contributions to the sewer systems, therefore all efforts should be made to accurately represent their actual location/elevation, and only apply sag inlets to this node if aggregating catchbasins along the pipe length. Similarly, where differing catchbasin types exist as part of the same node, it is the proponents discretion to determine the need to adjust the gully type, number, or to add dummy nodes to represent the various grating type, or single vs. twin.

The following are typical Head-Discharge tables to be applied in all basement flooding modelling exercises.




Single Catchbasin -Horizontal Bars/Fishbone Head (m)

Discharge (m3/s) per Longitudinal Road Profile Slope

<=0.5% 0.5-3.99% >=4%

-0.500 -0.500 -0.500 -0.500

-0.110 -0.042 -0.061 -0.057

-0.104 -0.036 -0.056 -0.052

-0.100 -0.034 -0.052 -0.049

-0.090 -0.023 -0.040 -0.041

-0.080 -0.013 -0.029 -0.032

-0.070 -0.010 -0.018 -0.022

-0.065 -0.008 -0.014 -0.017

-0.060 -0.005 -0.010 -0.012

0.000 0 0 0

0.060 0.005 0.010 0.012

0.065 0.008 0.014 0.017

0.070 0.010 0.018 0.022

0.080 0.013 0.029 0.032

0.090 0.023 0.040 0.041

0.100 0.034 0.052 0.049

0.104 0.036 0.056 0.052

0.110 0.042 0.061 0.057

0.500 0.046 0.067 0.063




Single Catchbasin - Grid Head (m)


<=0.5% 0.5-3.99% >=4%

-0.500 -0.500 -0.500 -0.500

-0.110 -0.039 -0.051 -0.040

-0.104 -0.033 -0.044 -0.036

-0.100 -0.027 -0.039 -0.032

-0.090 -0.019 -0.030 -0.027

-0.080 -0.012 -0.021 -0.017

-0.070 -0.008 -0.015 -0.011

-0.065 -0.006 -0.012 -0.007

-0.060 -0.003 -0.009 -0.005

0.000 0 0 0

0.060 0.003 0.009 0.005

0.065 0.006 0.012 0.007

0.070 0.008 0.015 0.011

0.080 0.012 0.021 0.017

0.090 0.019 0.030 0.027

0.100 0.027 0.039 0.032

0.104 0.033 0.044 0.036

0.110 0.039 0.051 0.040

0.500 0.043 0.056 0.044




Single Catchbasin - Honeycomb Head (m)


<=0.5% 0.5-3.99% >=4%

-0.500 -0.500 -0.500 -0.500

-0.110 -0.044 -0.085 -0.029

-0.104 -0.037 -0.074 -0.025

-0.100 -0.033 -0.067 -0.023

-0.090 -0.025 -0.050 -0.006

-0.080 -0.018 -0.034 0.000

-0.070 -0.012 -0.016 0.000

-0.065 -0.006 -0.005 0.000

0.000 0 0 0

0.065 0.010 0.005 0.000

0.070 0.012 0.016 0.000

0.080 0.018 0.034 0.000

0.090 0.025 0.050 0.006

0.100 0.033 0.067 0.023

0.104 0.037 0.074 0.025

0.110 0.044 0.085 0.029

0.500 0.048 0.093 0.032




Twin Catchbasin -Horizontal Bars/Fishbone Head (m)


<=0.5% 0.5-3.99% >=4%

-0.500 -0.500 -0.500 -0.500

-0.110 -0.051 -0.080 -0.092

-0.104 -0.045 -0.070 -0.082

-0.100 -0.042 -0.065 -0.075

-0.090 -0.026 -0.049 -0.058

-0.080 -0.016 -0.033 -0.041

-0.070 -0.012 -0.022 -0.026

-0.065 -0.009 -0.017 -0.020

-0.060 -0.006 -0.010 -0.012

0.000 0 0 0

0.060 0.006 0.010 0.012

0.065 0.009 0.017 0.020

0.070 0.012 0.022 0.026

0.080 0.016 0.033 0.041

0.090 0.026 0.049 0.058

0.100 0.042 0.065 0.075

0.104 0.045 0.070 0.082

0.110 0.051 0.080 0.092

0.500 0.056 0.088 0.101




Twin Catchbasin - Grid Head (m)


<=0.5% 0.5-3.99% >=4%

-0.500 -0.500 -0.500 -0.500

-0.110 -0.041 -0.058 -0.055

-0.104 -0.034 -0.049 -0.047

-0.100 -0.027 -0.043 -0.040

-0.090 -0.019 -0.032 -0.031

-0.080 -0.012 -0.022 -0.019

-0.070 -0.008 -0.016 -0.011

-0.065 -0.006 -0.013 -0.008

-0.060 -0.003 -0.009 -0.005

0.000 0 0 0

0.060 0.003 0.009 0.005

0.065 0.006 0.013 0.008

0.070 0.008 0.016 0.011

0.080 0.012 0.022 0.019

0.090 0.019 0.032 0.031

0.100 0.027 0.043 0.040

0.104 0.034 0.049 0.047

0.110 0.041 0.058 0.055

0.500 0.045 0.064 0.061




Twin Catchbasin - Honeycomb Head (m)


<=0.5% 0.5-3.99% >=4%

-0.500 -0.500 -0.500 -0.500

-0.110 -0.045 -0.093 -0.041

-0.104 -0.038 -0.079 -0.033

-0.100 -0.034 -0.071 -0.029

-0.090 -0.025 -0.051 -0.007

-0.080 -0.018 -0.034 0.000

-0.070 -0.012 -0.017 0.000

-0.065 -0.010 -0.005 0.000

0.000 0 0.0 0.000

0.065 0.010 0.005 0.000

0.070 0.012 0.017 0.000

0.080 0.018 0.034 0.000

0.090 0.025 0.051 0.007

0.100 0.034 0.071 0.029

0.104 0.038 0.079 0.033

0.110 0.045 0.093 0.041

0.500 0.050 0.103 0.045




Catchbasins in Sags (Low Points)

Head (m)

Inlet Capacity (m3/s)

Horizontal Bar Honeycomb Grid Twin Horizontal Twin Honeycomb Twin Grid -0.30 -0.203 -0.484 -0.234 -0.405 -0.967 -0.468 -0.08 -0.035 -0.081 -0.035 -0.053 -0.124 -0.053 -0.07 -0.025 -0.066 -0.025 -0.037 -0.097 -0.037 -0.06 -0.017 -0.053 -0.017 -0.026 -0.079 -0.026 -0.05 -0.011 -0.040 -0.011 -0.016 -0.058 -0.016 -0.04 -0.007 -0.029 -0.007 -0.010 -0.040 -0.010 -0.03 -0.004 -0.019 -0.004 -0.005 -0.023 -0.005 -0.02 -0.002 -0.010 -0.002 -0.003 -0.017 -0.003 -0.01 0.000 -0.004 0.000 -0.001 -0.011 -0.001 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.01 0.000 0.004 0.000 0.001 0.011 0.001 0.02 0.002 0.010 0.002 0.003 0.017 0.003 0.03 0.004 0.019 0.004 0.005 0.023 0.005 0.04 0.007 0.029 0.007 0.010 0.040 0.010 0.50 0.011 0.040 0.011 0.016 0.058 0.016 0.06 0.017 0.053 0.017 0.026 0.079 0.026 0.07 0.025 0.066 0.025 0.037 0.097 0.037 0.08 0.035 0.081 0.035 0.053 0.124 0.053 0.09 0.046 0.097 0.046 0.071 0.148 0.071 0.10 0.060 0.113 0.060 0.091 0.172 0.091 0.11 0.073 0.131 0.073 0.108 0.195 0.108 0.12 0.085 0.149 0.086 0.126 0.220 0.126 0.13 0.097 0.168 0.098 0.142 0.245 0.142 0.14 0.108 0.188 0.109 0.155 0.269 0.156 0.15 0.118 0.208 0.122 0.168 0.296 0.173 0.20 0.157 0.321 0.173 0.244 0.499 0.268 0.25 0.181 0.450 0.208 0.324 0.803 0.372 0.30 0.203 0.484 0.234 0.405 0.967 0.468




Manhole Covers at a Sag (Low Point) Head (m)


Perforated MH Cover

MH (2 pick

holes)

-0.500 -0.050 -0.007

-0.305 -0.047 -0.006

-0.244 -0.042 -0.005

-0.200 -0.038 -0.005

-0.182 -0.037 -0.005

-0.121 -0.030 -0.004

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.121 0.030 0.004

0.182 0.037 0.005

0.200 0.038 0.005

0.244 0.042 0.005

Peforated Cover

0.305 0.047 0.006

0.500 0.050 0.007

Standard Cover (2 holes)




High Capacity Inlet at Sag Head (m)

Discharge (m3/s)

Honeycomb Frame 1.5x0.9m, ~60x40mm openings

-0.500 -0.500

-0.050 -0.250

-0.020 -0.100

0.000 0.000

0.020 0.100

0.050 0.250

0.100 0.250

0.300 0.250

0.600 0.250




Inlet Control Devices Head (m)


ICD_20L (Vortex)

ICD_40L (Orifice)

0.000 0.000 0.000

0.060 0.010 0.010

0.065 0.014 0.014

0.070 0.015 0.038

0.150 0.016 0.039

0.300 0.017 0.041

0.900 0.020 0.049

Vortex ICD - Q=17L/ at Ponding Depth of 300mm. Maximum inflow of 20 L/s in surface

flooding conditions.

Orifice Plate, 117.4mm opening - Q=40L/s at Ponding Depth of 150mm. Maximum inflow

of 49 L/s in surface flooding conditions.

Note: The gully elevation datum is at the node rim (i.e. surface level), and the head-discharge relationships for these Inlet Control Devices are based on a variable depth to the catchbasin invert. Therefore, the head-discharge relationships have been based on the average grate capture for depths less than 70 mm, with levels greater than 70 mm at the capacity of the ICD.




Within InfoWorks, the Head-Discharge grid shall be as presented below, at minimum. Additional relationships, including slot drains and depressed grates, must be approved by the City before implementation. Roof gullies are discussed in Section 5.5.1.




5.3 UNDERGROUND CONDUIT MODELLING GUIDELINES

The main input for an underground conduit is the system type, solution model, and physical pipe dimensions, key elements of which are described in the following sections.

5.3.1 Solution Model

The solution model can be one of four choices: Full, Permeable, ForceMain, or Pressure. For the majority of basement flooding modelling scenarios, the Full solution model which applied the St. Venant equations is appropriate. Only where a pump station forcemain is simulated should the Pressure or ForceMain solutions be explored. See Section 5.6.6 for pump station discussion. For simulating the benefits of low impact development (LID) solutions through link conveyance elements, the Permeable model shall be explored. This enables the simulation of exfiltration from a stormwater conduit to the ground. Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS), or LID, are currently beyond the scope of these Basement Flooding Modelling Guidelines. Users are directed to the on-line help or Innovyze support team for more information.

5.3.2 Underground Pipe Cross-Sections

For the City of Toronto, standard pipe shapes are generally circular, rectangular, egg, or arch. These are pre-defined within the InfoWorks defaults. In special cases, non-standard pipe sizes can be created where necessary to represent pipes of unusual or defective shape. The following table presents specific underground shape parameters to be used where applicable.

Channel Type Height (Per unit) Width (Per unit) Conceptual InfoWorks Input

Pipe with dry weather flow channel

0.000000 0.150000 0.200000 0.800000 0.801000 0.990000 1.000000

0.100000 0.150000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 1.000000 0.000000

Box Culvert with side flow path

0.000000 0.115400 0.999990 1.000000

Left Right 0.441200 0.911800 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 1.000000 0.000000 0.000000




Channel Type Height (Per unit) Width (Per unit) Conceptual InfoWorks Input

Box Culvert with chamfered corners

0.000000 0.200000 0.800000 0.999990 1.000000

0.666700 1.000000 1.000000 0.666700 0.000000

Elliptical Pipe

0 0.02 0.04 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 0.94 0.96 0.98 1.00

0.0000 0.2800 0.3919 0.6000 0.8000 0.9165 0.9798 1.0000 0.9798 0.9165 0.8000 0.6000 0.4750 0.3919 0.2800 0.0000

The modeler must be sure to capture the accurate pipe shape as it will impact the ability of the model to be calibrated for depth. Additional cross-sections as required shall be developed and discussed with the City prior to use in the model. Note: the City’s asset database may have height and width measurements transposed, and should be confirmed for non-circular shapes.

5.3.3 Minor Losses

Minor losses (headlosses in InfoWorks) are used to define the hydraulic instabilities at structures caused by pipe transitions at maintenance holes or within a pipe, by appurtenances in the flow, or inlet/outlet coverage. General up and downstream losses are to be calculated using the




InfoWorks auto-inference tool, assuming “Normal” Headloss Type.

The headloss values are inferred based on the angle of pipe bends between connecting conduits (see InfoWorks help file for more information). Automated inference should be conducted on the final validated pipe network (excluding the overland system), and should be flagged as “IN” inferred and confirmed for suitability during model calibration. For culverts, headlosses are calculated independently by the Culvert Inlet and Culvert Outlet link types, therefore no headloss coefficients should be applied and the Headloss Type changed to “None”. For special circumstances such as transitions in diameter (large to small) or other special structures, additional analysis and definition of coefficients shall be undertaken and documented; particularly at the detailed design stage.

Headlosses should not be used for Overland conduits, and the Headloss Type should be changed to “None” and flagged “OV”.

5.4 OVERLAND MAJOR SYSTEM CONDUITS

The definition of the major system is extremely important, as it has a great influence on the performance of the collection systems. The following provides guidance on the development of the overland major system conduits:

• A simple way to create the initial overland network within InfoWorks is to copy the minor system network, then convert the system type to “Overland” and change the conduit invert flags to default (#D) which will automatically transfer the connecting manhole ground elevations.

• All overland conduits with negative slopes (i.e. overland flow direction opposite to pipe direction) should have their direction reversed, and any overland flow paths not within the road right-of-ways (i.e. easements, outfalls, etc.) should be deleted. This will result in an initial basic framework of the overland network.

• Manual review of the overland network and comparison against the DEM is required to find high and low points that are not reflected by the minor system layout and add as required.

• All streets should have some form of overland link defined, regardless of the presence of underground storm sewers.

• Special attention should be paid to paths between homes as possible overland flow routes. Similarly where cul-de-sacs exist the overland flow route may include a path through private property under extreme events.

• Ditch Drainage systems are not connected to the underground system and must be simulated with appropriate cross-section, roughness, and definition of overland nodes at representative elevation or cross-section changes.




5.4.1 Overland Cross-Sections

Overland flow paths are simulated as open channels in the model which requires the definition of the cross-section shape, dimensions and roughness parameters. In urban areas, the overland system will primarily be made up of the road network. For local and collector roads, use the standard conduit type (i.e. not a ‘river’ type), with a user defined cross-section based on a typical crowned road with curb and slope within the boulevard to the edge of property right-of-ways. This is an equivalent open-area representation to a typical crowned road in the centre to avoid ‘split-flow’ within the conduit. Review the typical road classifications within the study area to determine the distribution of arterial, local and other road types such as highways etc. Measure the road right-of-ways between property boundaries to establish average widths for the typical road types and use judgment to choose an appropriate cross-section for each road.

Overland Channel Type Height (Per unit) Width (Per unit) Conceptual InfoWorks

Input

Local Road

0.000000 0.320755 0.566038 1.000000

0.029126 0.441748 0.441748 1.000000

Width=20,000 mm Height=300 mm

Collector Road (Multiple Lane)

0.000000 0.528302 0.566038 1.000000

0.022989 0.559387 0.559387 1.000000

Width=24-30,000 mm Height=300 mm

For open channel rural road cross-sections with no storm sewer system and ditches, the cross-section should be defined through field topographic survey at various points to generally represent the conveyance system characteristics. In InfoWorks, the overland channel should be coded as a standard conduit with an equivalent cross-section developed by the modeller. Alternatively, each field-measured cross-section should be input as a River link with appropriate sections and roughness defined for each. The modeller must consider the overall flow path and hydraulics of the entry points to the collection system (e.g. ditch-inlet catchbasins), along with relative depth compared to property lines when determining the rural cross-section approach. Simplification of the ditch-culvert system in the model must be justified and documented, and confirmed with City staff.




5.4.2 Overland Spills at Low Points

Low Points in roads are areas where water can accumulate. Usually the storage defined by the overland link cross-sections will sufficiently represent the water level at these locations. However, if the flood level exceeds the channel cross-section depth, additional storage information may be required if the flow from this location impacts the overland or collection system downstream. Code critical low points as a stage-area relationship based on data from field surveys. Estimate the spill elevation from field observations (e.g. curb level, or higher spill point) and set the crest width to mimic the limiting constriction of the flow path, such as the space between buildings.

Concept

Location of potential spills to be coordinated with the Overland Flow Path Analysis and Field Survey, verified with input from the Public Questionnaire and other anecdotal information/observations. Model simulations shall determine the need to code a spill point, should water accumulation occur beyond the estimated spill depth.

Considerations

• Low point node • Define elevation based on

lowest location • One or more overland flow

paths to terminate at low point node

• Weir • Weir connected from low point

to receiving node. Note that if the receiving node is of Type Storm with a minor system, the node must have a gully to prevent bypass of the gully.

• Width estimated based on physical opening of spillway at depth of water (e.g. space between buildings).

Overland Spill Weir (Set to Top of Curb

Elevation)

Low Point

Receiving Overland Channel

0.15m

Low Point Node

Spill Weir with Crest Set to Top of Curb

Elevation

Road

Receiving Overland Channel

Spill activated when depth at low point node reaches weir crest




5.5 ROOFS

Roof flow contributions to the underground or the surface must be reflected in the hydraulic model. Information on downspout disconnection status is obtained from the field survey and resident questionnaire, and direct sewer connections can be estimated based on historic dye-test records, operator knowledge, field testing, or previous reports.

Theoretically, there are four components that make up roof runoff:

1. Runoff hydrograph generated from the roof surface.

2. Conveyance restriction of roof hydrograph through the eaves, downspout and lateral.

3. Routing of disconnected discharge over a pervious surface to the overland inlet.

4. Overflow of roof runoff beyond the eaves/downspout/lateral capacity to the surface.

Previous basement flooding modelling assignments for the City have applied different approaches to simulating roof runoff. These lesson’s learned have culminated in a preference for the following approach. The modeler shall confirm any proposed modifications or new approaches at the onset of the project.

5.5.1 Modelling Roofs- Physical Representation

The physical representation of roofs involves the addition of extra model objects to represent the runoff generated by a sloped or flat roof, the capture of flow by downspouts or roof drains, the storage potential of flat roofs, connectivity status to the surface or underground lateral, and the overflow to the surface during extreme events when downspout capacity is exceeded. This is described schematically in the graphic below.




Modelling Roofs - Physical Representation via Additional Nodes and Links

Assumptions on the following information are required for building the physical roof connectivity:

• Average number of downspouts per home. • Disconnection status and number of downspouts connected per home. • Capacity limitations of roof eavestroughs, downspouts, and storm laterals. • Flat roof storage potential, accounting for open area, overflow scupper depth, number

of roof drains, and potential for roof drain capacity restriction (controlled and uncontrolled).

The following subsections describe the physical model-building procedures.

5.5.1.1 Sloped Connected Roofs

Residential sloped roofs that are known/believed to be directly connected to the storm sewer system shall be connected to the system by way of the number of connected downspouts per subcatchment. A new node must be created for each subcatchment containing directly connected roofs, named after the receiving storm node with the “Rc_” prefix. See Section 6.0 for definition of subcatchment hydrology. The following assumptions are required for this new node:




• Ground elevation: must be higher than the receiving street node (assume by 0.6m).

• Type “Gully” with rating curve = "Downspout", as presented below for a typical 3 inch diameter downspout dimension with a 25% blockage factor applied.

• Assume a maximum 3 L/s capacity, is independent of head, since not simulating the build-up of water within the eavestroughs.

• Number of sloped roof downspouts to be based on 1 downspout per 65 m2 of roof area. Results from the questionnaire, field survey and historic dye-test mapping shall be used to confirm this assumption and cross-reference connectivity to the collection system.

• Aggregate number of downspouts in subcatchment per partially or directly connected roof (independent of roof area), rounding to the next highest even number.

• The System Type for the subcatchment must be “Storm” in order for the gully relationship to apply.

• The node connects by a dummy pipe (assume 300mm @ 2%, for 30m, or 0.6 m drop) which acts as the storm lateral and can be used as an indicator for excessive roof contributions. Use “L” as link suffix for this lateral. This pipe size should be reviewed to ensure the transfer of aggregated flow from roofs to pipe is without surcharge in the 5 year storm.

• A secondary User Control link of type “Overland” is added to reflect spill from roofs onto the overland network (assume head-discharge table “Unlimited” with invert elevation 0.1 m above new node ground elevation), connecting to receiving node and overland network in the street.

• Downspout disconnection may be simulated by reducing the number of downspouts per roof node (i.e. number of gullies), as the excess will spill on to the overland.

Downspout Discharge Capacity (L/s) ParametersDownspout Capture1 Adjusted Orifice Parameters

(m) Orifice Weir Control for Clogging Orifice Invert Perimeter0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 m 0.24 m0.01 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 Dimensions HxW (m) Area0.02 1.7 1.1 1.1 0.8 0.0762 0.0762 0.005 m2

0.03 2.1 2.1 2.1 1.6 Orifice Centre Orifice Coeff.0.04 2.4 3.2 2.4 1.8 0 m 0.60.05 2.7 4.5 2.7 2.0 Orifice Shape Orientation0.06 3.0 5.9 3.0 2.2 Circular Horizontal0.07 3.2 7.4 3.2 2.4 Weir Coeff. 1.670 Max Head (m) 0.1270.08 3.4 9.0 3.4 2.6 Roof Characteristics0.09 3.6 10.8 3.6 2.7 Area (m2) 65 # Downspouts 1.00.10 3.8 12.6 3.8 2.9 Slope (m/m) 0.330 Blockage Factor 25%0.11 4.0 14.6 4.0 3.0 Adjusted # of Downspouts per Roof 1.00.12 4.2 16.6 4.2 3.1 Gutter Characteristics0.13 4.4 18.7 4.4 3.3 Width (m) 0.127 Slope (m/m) 0.005210.14 4.5 20.9 4.5 3.4 Depth (m) 0.150 Areax (m2) 0.0190.15 4.7 23.2 4.7 3.5 Mannings 0.013 Capacity (L/s) 13.3

1. Conventional uncontrolled straight drop pipe assumed to act as a sharp crested weir or orifice whichever limits Q

Depth

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16

Capa

city

(L/s

)

Depth (m)

Downspout CapacityCircular 3" Dia.

Adjusted for Clogging

Orifice

Weir




• An automated procedure can be set-up within a spreadsheet to define the new nodes and links required for simulating roof control, based on off-sets (in the x, y and z plane) from the existing receiving node. The new nodes, links and subcatchments can then be imported into InfoWorks together to avoid lengthy manual digitization.

5.5.1.2 Flat Roofs

Flat roofs are normally associated with ICI or high-density residential properties, and typically have large areas that drain to internal plumbing. Based on historic dye-testing, these internal drains often discharge directly to the storm sewer. However, given the generally flat surface area and hydraulic limitations of the inflow to these drains, the flow received from the 100% impervious roofs is often attenuated by the resulting water ponding. In some instances, specific roof inlet controls are designed to limit discharges and maximize storage as part of a building’s stormwater management strategy. Data regarding flat roofs should be investigated in areas of large ICI or multi-family building contributions.

To estimate the potential impact of flat roofs on the drainage system, a relationship should be derived as presented in the graphic below, based on a series of assumptions below. Similar to sloped roofs in Section 5.5.1.1, a new node must be created for each subcatchment containing directly connected roofs, named after the receiving storm node with the “FRc_” or “FRd_” prefix, depending on connectivity status (see Section 4.5.1.5. and 6.1).

• One roof drain per 160 m2 of flat roof area, or 62.5 drains/ha.

• Maximum roof storage to a depth of 0.050 m before spill through scuppers to the surface.

• Circular 4” (100 mm) diameter vertical drain (controlled by lesser of orifice or weir flow).

• 50% of roofs have some form of roof control, with limiting control to typical Zurn Control-Flo Single Notch model of 0.68 L/s/drain.

• 80% of the roof area is available for storage to account for ancillary structures.

• No greater than the 2-year storm runoff peak can enter the roof drain.

Storage Discharge (L/s) AssumptionsFlat Roof Roof Drain Capture Adjusted Orifice Parameters

(m) Volume (m3) Orifice Weir Uncontrolled Controlled** Discharge Orifice Invert Perimeter0.000 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 m 0.32 m0.005 0.6 1.52 0.19 0.19 0.05 0.12 Dimensions HxW (m) Area0.010 1.3 2.15 0.53 0.53 0.09 0.31 0.1016 0.1016 0.008 m2

0.015 1.9 2.64 0.98 0.98 0.14 0.56 Orifice Centre Orifice Coeff.0.020 2.6 3.05 1.51 1.51 0.18 0.85 0 m 0.60.025 3.2 3.41 2.11 2.11 0.23 1.17 Orifice Shape Orientation0.030 3.8 3.73 2.77 2.77 0.27 1.52 Circular Horizontal0.035 4.5 4.03 3.49 3.49 0.32 1.91 Weir Coeff. 1.670 Max Head (m) 0.0750.040 5.1 4.31 4.26 4.26 0.37 2.32 Roof Characteristics0.045 5.8 4.57 5.09 4.57 0.42 2.49 Area (m2) 160 # Drain/160m2 10.050 6.4 4.82 5.96 4.82 0.46 2.64 %Area for Storage 80% # Drain/ha 62.50.055 7.0 5.05 6.88 5.05 0.51 2.78 Eff. Area (m2) 128 # Drains 1.00.060 7.7 5.28 7.83 5.28 0.55 2.91 Fraction of Roofs with Inlet Controls 50%0.065 8.3 5.49 8.83 5.49 0.60 3.04 Roof Drain Controlled Capacity (L/s) 0.680.070 9.0 5.70 9.87 5.70 0.64 3.17 Sample 100yr Results0.075 9.6 5.90 10.95 5.90 0.68 3.29 Depth (m) 0.043 Flow (m3/s) 2.42

Volume (m3) 5.5

Depth

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080

Capa

city

(L/s

)

Depth (m)

Flat Roof Drain Capacity per 160m2 Area(Circular 4" Dia., 50% Controlled to Max. 0.68L/s)

UncontrolledControlled**Adjusted Discharge




• A storage node shall be used with the gully type “FlatRoof” to represent the flat roof stage-storage-discharge curve. The storage volume and number of drains are prorated by flat roof area within the subcatchment, i.e. number of gullies = Flat Roof Area / 160 m2 per drain.

• For connected flat roofs, two new links must be connected from this node to the receiving node: a 300 mm conduit @ 2% representing the lateral flow (“L” suffix), and a User Control link set to 0.050 m above the roof node for accepting spilled overland flow.

• Disconnected flat roofs required another sequence of User Control (“U” suffix) and open channel link (“O” suffix) to convey the roof release to the receiving surface node:

o User Control set to 0.29 m below the flat roof gully node with head-discharge table set to “UNLIMITED” to convey 100% of gully flow representing controlled roof flow to a new dummy roof node “Frd_###!”.

o Overland link connects the dummy node (type Overland, shape OREC, 5m long, 20m wide, 300mm deep @ 6%), to convey the disconnected flow to the surface.

• It is assumed that no flat roof overflow will occur during a 100-year storm, however it should occur during more extreme historic events.

• The roof relationship and assumptions herein should be reviewed as part of the storm calibration exercise, and revised as necessary.

5.5.2 Modelling Large Parking Lots (ICI)

Large parking lots are typically highly impervious and therefore generate a large volume and peak flow of runoff from subcatchments. In addition, parking lots associated with industrial, commercial and/or institutional properties often also are graded such that they do not drain directly to the municipal right-of-way, and instead have purposefully engineered surface and underground storage controls to temporarily detain runoff on-site.

Therefore, large parking lots shall be modelled as a separate subcatchment, storage node, and overland spill connection (if necessary) to the receiving surface flow path. Storage estimates shall be based on observations from the street, and be reflective of realistic ponding depths accounting for grading. The idealized representation will include a single gully-storage node with the number of sag catchbasin in the lot, and a stage-area ‘cone’ with maximum 300 mm ponding/storage depth. Unless provided in engineering drawings or field investigation, the underground sewer size, dimensions and connection to the municipal collection must be assumed.

Ultimately it is the responsibility of the modeller to determine the appropriate representation of a parking lot, considering the actual topography, field conditions, and flow contribution potential to the collection system both above and below ground. In newer ICI redevelopments, the proponent should seek the stormwater management report to reduce the uncertainty in developing the parking lot response.




5.5.3 Modelling Reverse Driveways

Reverse driveways are a major contributor to flooding in both the private lot, and potentially indirectly to the sanitary system should flood waters back-up into the house. Therefore, reverse driveways should be considered as individual model elements in drainage areas where flooding is prevalent, overland flow paths are deep, storm sewers are shallow, and density of reverse driveways is high. A separate subcatchment should be created representing the aggregate reverse driveway area in the storm subcatchment. A dummy reverse driveway node (assume elevation below road grade based on field observations) with a “RD_” prefix and gully representing the catchbasin type will connect via dummy storm lateral link to the main sewer assuming 250 mm diameter at 0.5% minimum, unless better information is available.

5.5.4 Modelling Rear Yards

Where significant drainage area is tributary to a rear yard inlet and there is known surface flooding issues, or where several rear yard inlets exist in a subcatchment, it is preferred to separately delineate the drainage area to these structures. Application of rear yard catchbasins to the street node in these situations can over-estimate the storm/combined system inflow, and underestimate surface levels. A dummy rear yard node with a “RY_” prefix shall connect to a representative lead (minimum diameter 250 mm) and be connected to the main sewer system. Assumptions on slope and connectivity shall be documented in the model fields.

5.6 SPECIAL HYDRAULIC STRUCTURES

Represent other structures critical to system operation as accurately as possible in the model. Refer to plan and profile drawings and site photographs for structure details.

5.6.1 Weirs

Weirs can be used for multiple purposes in the modelling environment for basement flooding. As part of the underground piped system, a weir is often used to separate dry weather flow from wet weather flow and controls the discharge of combined sewage to the environment. Weirs can also be used to represent non-physical elements and be used to transfer flow from one node to another, as in spill points for overland flow at low-lying areas. Weirs typically are used as part of a stormwater management facility or underground storage facility outlet structure. The input for weirs is demonstrated in the inset graphic.




If the weir is in an enclosed pipe system, the roof height is a necessary input to enable appropriate hydraulic calculations should the water level close the roof and the weir begins to function as an orifice.

The configuration of the weir and surrounding setup will affect the parameters of the weir coefficient. These include the shape of the weir and the orientation (transverse weir, side weir). Weirs in InfoWorks CS are transverse, meaning they are perpendicular to the flow. Therefore a lateral or side weir would require modifications to the coefficients. The modeler is referenced to WaPUG User Note 27 for specific cases and advice on coefficient choice.

5.6.2 Orifices

Orifices shall be used to regulate the flow rate and allow volume retention to occur upstream. An orifice can be created through either the use of an orifice plate or a throttle pipe. An orifice plate is a structure placed over the continuation pipe, which restricts flow due to having a smaller diameter than the continuation. A throttle pipe works in a similar fashion, but instead of having a plate, the continuation pipe is sized smaller than the incoming pipe and the flow restriction limits the amount of pass-forward flow and retains water upstream when the pipe full capacity has been reached. This is often used with in-line storage to ensure the storage is fully utilized.

The input for orifices is demonstrated in the inset graphic. If the orifice is known to have a specific design which limits flow above a certain threshold then the limiting discharge is used to reflect this. The modeler is referenced to WaPUG User Note 2 for specific cases and advice on coefficient choice.

5.6.3 Sluice Gates

Sluice gates are used in the model to represent gates in the sewer network which can have variable opening sizes. The user defines the opening size of the sluice gate based on known data and the model calculates the flow capacity based on the diameter of the gate.

The input for sluice gates is demonstrated in the inset graphic. The opening height of the sluice




can be input to reflect whether the sluice is open or closed and by how much.

5.6.4 User-Control

The user-control link allows the user to apply a head/discharge curve to represent a flow relationship based on a defined invert/crest elevation. This must be applied with caution as the discharge is affected by the differential upstream and downstream head, therefore the user must understand the downstream water level hydraulics and confirm the suitability of using the tool. This link type can be used to represent simplified storage outlet structure rating curves in place of individual orifice, gate, weir, conduit elements. It can also be used as a mechanism to convey 100% of water from one location to another as a dummy link without requiring routing. Certain structures, such as hydraulic control devices, require the use of a user-control link as the discharge is designed to change with variations in the head in a non-linear relationship. Head/discharge curves should be obtained from the supplier. The input for user-control link is demonstrated in the inset graphic.

5.6.5 Pumps

Pumps are applied to the model where non-gravity flow elements are required to convey flow from lower areas to higher areas, such as a sanitary pumping station, or a stormwater tank. The user can define the pump rate and on/off levels, or set known pump/discharge curves according to pump specifications and available information. Pumps require the definition of a storage node upstream to act as either a wet well or an underground storage facility. The outflow from a pump is typically a forcemain, which requires the “Solution Model” type to be “ForceMain”, which assumes the pipe is always full (thereby forcing the pressurized pipe model no matter what the flow conditions) although the hydraulic grade line can drop below the pipe obvert. Negative hydraulic grade lines do not automatically indicate erroneous results. See the InfoWorks help file for more information on the use of pressurized pipes.




5.6.6 Culverts

Culverts structures are conveyance structures typically connecting two open channels at a bermed crossing such as a road or railway. They are also sometimes entrances to a closed pipe minor system. The hydraulics of culverts has been investigated through much research, resulting in a series of equations derived to represent the various configurations of the inlet and outlet structures. InfoWorks captures these headloss equations through two distinct link types: the Culvert Inlet, and the Culvert Outlet. The graphic below depicts the input window for these two components. As a result, headlosses should not be input in the conduit(s) representing the culvert.

Appendix B.2.5 provides a reference table of parameters for the above variables, based on the inlet and outlet configuration. A series of Dummy nodes are required to connect the overland channel to the inlet control, to the culvert barrel itself (modelled as a regular conduit), and from the culvert outlet control to the receiving overland channel. Careful definition of the elevation parameters of the culvert inverts and Dummy nodes is required, and the Dummy nodes should not have any associated storage volume. The InfoWorks Help file provides more information on the theory of culvert hydraulics and its model application.




5.6.7 Real Time Control

RTC parameters are applied when a pump philosophy dictates the functioning of a pump regime. This occurs often in off-line storage where the pump return only operates once the water level at a measured point drops below the set criteria. The RTC uses a logic algorithm to compute the pump philosophy and dictate when the pumps are on or off.

5.7 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

The operation of a sewer system is often influenced by downstream boundary conditions as backwater effects can impede flow when levels are high. Boundary conditions must be established where the sewer system connects to downstream trunks or where outfalls discharge, and shall consider the time-variability of data.

Boundary conditions vary depending on the model simulation. Therefore, evaluation of the need and extent of boundary conditions must be undertaken for calibration phase, extreme event validation, and design storm simulations. Dates must be appropriately input for each simulation in order for the boundary conditions to apply.

5.7.1 Level Based

Use historic flow monitoring data or other sewer model results, or for outfalls the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) may have water level data simulations (HEC-RAS model) or stage gauges.

For watercourses, the proponent must demonstrate the influence or lack of influence on the outfall, considering the size of the tributary Subwatershed, timing of watercourse stage peak versus collection system peak, and extent of impact on the collection system. Consultation with




the City is required to determine the appropriate return period from which to assess the watercourse level, which is depending on the watershed and elevation of the existing sewershed relative to the floodplain. Document of all assumptions and justifications.

For sanitary trunk levels, historic level data and/or hydraulic model simulations performed by the City can be used to develop a time series input. Again, the definition of the appropriate return frequency must be derived in consultation with the City, depending on the trunk system, the location within the overall sewershed, and known issues in the downstream system.

Level Groups are time variable, therefore requiring the proper definition of date and time to properly align with each simulation start and end time. All assumptions and sources of data shall be documented within the Level Group Description and within the Profile Properties editor of each profile as demonstrated in the graphic below. Note that the Pipe Level or Datum value is optional, as it is not used in the simulation.

5.7.2 Flow Based

Inflow data is time-varying flow values that can be applied to represent known flow incoming from outside of the study area (e.g. from external model, flow monitoring data, etc.), which will translate into corresponding level and velocity response in the receiving conduit. It can be used to increase run performance by reducing the size of a model through addition of an equivalent inflow hydrograph to a boundary location.

Flow Groups are time variable, therefore requiring the proper definition of date and time to properly align with each simulation start and end time. All assumptions and sources of data shall be documented within the Flow Group Description and within the Profile Properties editor of each profile as demonstrated in the inset graphic.



Hydrology (Sewage and Runoff Modelling) Version 1.02 - October 2014

6.0 HYDROLOGY (SEWAGE AND RUNOFF MODELLING)

This section discusses the hydrologic modelling principles to be applied for Basement Flooding projects.

6.1 OVERVIEW

The general modeling philosophy demonstrating the interaction of the hydrology with the overland and various underground systems, is presented in the following graphics for separated/partially separated systems, and combined systems.




The following sections outline the details of the hydrologic components of the storm drainage and wastewater collection systems, and their connectivity to the hydraulic elements described in Section 5.0.

6.2 SUBCATCHMENT SET-UP

Flow is generated within the model from four main sources:

• Dry weather flow from properties connected to the sanitary or combined systems • Wet weather flow from roofs directly connected to storm or combined systems • Wet weather flow from all other surface areas, including non-connected roofs or

overflow from connected roofs • Wet weather Inflow & Infiltration from extraneous sources to sanitary systems

These flows are generated in the model from the Subcatchment layer. InfoWorks CS has a unique model structure that defines a subcatchment by a series of standard “Runoff Surfaces”, grouped together by common “Land Uses”, as demonstrated below.




Subcatchment Model Schematic in InfoWorks

A subcatchment is made up of a combination of “Runoff Surfaces” by percentage or absolute areas, that can be automated by setting default percentages with various “Land Use” types. Each “Land Use” also can define default wastewater generation parameters, used in concert with the Wastewater Profile editor. Screen captures of the model grid fields demonstrating the interconnectivity between these elements is provided on the following page.

The graphics demonstrate the linkage between the Land Use tab in the Subcatchment grid. For the purposes of Basement Flooding modelling, this tab is used solely to distribute the corresponding Runoff Surfaces IDs to the Runoff Surface Area Numbers in the Subcatchment grid, which applied to the generation of storm runoff only. This is not to be confused with the physical make-up of the land usage within the subcatchment. Section 6.4.1 describes the Runoff Surfaces in more detail.

Subcatchment

Runoff Surface 1

Land Use 1

Runoff Surface 2

Runoff Surface 3

Runoff Surface

12

• Default Runoff Surface % • Wastewater Defaults • Runoff Volume Type (Fixed) • Initial Abstractions (Loss) • Routing Model (SWMM) • Runoff Routing Value (n) • Infiltration Type/Parameters • Runoff Coefficient (1.0)

• Total Area (ha) • Runoff Surface Areas (ha) • Dimension Width (m) • Slope • RTK Hydrograph




The Study Area must be discretized into subcatchments for each intended system type (storm, sanitary, combined and overland). For Basement Flooding models, the preference is to use Absolute areas over default percentages, given the detailed nature of these investigations. The subcatchment set-up shall consist of the following base elements:

Subcatchment Description Name Prefix

Sanitary - Population Boundary defined by Lot Fabric and Address Points, to associate population value and land uses only, independent of area.

SP_###

Sanitary - Buffer Area-based boundary defined as a 45 m buffer on either side of all sanitary pipes. Provides a consistent measure of drainage area for dry weather Base Flow and Wet Weather Infiltration/Inflow definition and comparison.

SA_###

Storm/Combined - Topography-Based

Manhole to Manhole, topography -based boundaries, excluding directly-connected roofs.

ST_###

Storm/Combined - Sloped Directly Connected Roofs

Dummy subcatchment to represent the cumulative area of directly-connected sloped-roofs within the topographic subcatchment.

Rc_###

Storm/Combined - Flat Roofs

Dummy subcatchment to represent the cumulative area of directly-connected flat-roofs within the topographic subcatchment.

FRc_###

Storm - Large Parking Lots

Estimate of contributing drainage area in a large parking lot where surface storage and/or stormwater management controls exist. Drains to storage node.

PL_###

Storm - Reverse Driveways

Aggregated drainage area representing the reverse-driveways in a subcatchment. Drains to gully node.

RD_###

Storm - Rear Yard Where significant, drainage area to rear yard catchbasins, draining to gully node.

RY_###

The connectivity of the subcatchments is described further in Section 5.5. Further guidance on each system type is provided in the following section..

6.2.1 Sanitary System

Population subcatchments are to be based on the underlying parcel lot fabric as provided by the City. Manually review and modify the subcatchments as required to confirm appropriate connectivity to the collection system, especially in areas where multiple pipes are located in the same right-of-way. Plumbing drain cards and/or engineering drawings can assist.




Area-based subcatchments are to be delineated using a 45 m buffer on either side of all sanitary pipes, aggregated such that there are no overlapping boundaries. The buffer approach can be completed in GIS and the resulting polygons can be distributed to nodes within InfoWorks using the “Create from Polygon” routine (Thiessen Polygons). These tributary areas will ultimately define the portion of rainfall that enters the system, therefore manual review and calibration shall be undertaken with any automated delineation approach.

A sample sanitary subcatchment delineation is presented below.

6.2.2 Storm/Combined System

Develop flow paths and drainage boundaries to each maintenance hole using the City’s available Digital Elevation Model (DEM), Enterprise Stereoscopic Model (ESM) and topographic contour information as a base, where suitable data exists. External GIS software tools (e.g. Arc Hydro, Spatial Analyst, Stream Builder, etc.) may be used to help automate the process. The goal is to account for topography and all surface features that may interfere or influence the flow paths, such as curbs, gutters, ditches, fences, buildings, low points, ponds, etc.

Buffer-Based

Parcel-Based




Utilizing this topographic information, define storm subcatchments on a MH-to-MH basis within the main study area. A lumped modelling approach may be applied to external areas (as defined at the on-set of the project with the City, see Section 3.1.1).

Assume that all front lots are graded towards the street unless topographic/field information demonstrates otherwise. These base topographic subcatchments will be adjusted to remove the connected and/or disconnected roof areas within their boundary. This will be reflected in the Contributing Area field, and each Runoff Surface (see Section 6.3). The conceptual topographic delineation approach is presented below.

Conceptual Storm Subcatchment Delineation

Subcatchment delineation shall account for the physical topography of the overland system, along with the influence of drainage features such as curbs, lot-grading and depressed parking lots. Roof contributions must also be considered where downspouts are directly connected to the minor system via storm lateral, or where flat roofs may provide a level of control and storage. Location of actual catchbasin inlets can be considered in the subcatchment definition, however proper definition of the overland network will primarily influence sewer inflow.




6.2.3 Roof Areas

As noted in Section 5.5, roofs are simulated as separate model entities to account for the direct connection of pipes to the underground system, and to reflect the proportion of flow that overflows the roof gutters during extreme storm events. Roof areas shall be extracted from the impervious area definition for each Study Area, and shall reflect the actual area within each subcatchment (i.e. default estimates applied globally are discouraged). The conceptual development of the storm delineation for roofs is presented below.

6.2.4 Large Parking Lots, Reverse Driveways & Rear Yards

Large Parking lots are described in Section 5.5.2. Subcatchments shall be estimated where known storage or stormwater management controls exist or are suspected. The proponent is responsible for ensuring an accurate representation of the drainage area is depicted, and should undertake field confirmation of these important elements. The subcatchment shall be names as per the receiving dummy node (with a “PL_” prefix).

Reverse driveways shall be determined by aggregated area extracted from the impervious surface survey. Appropriate slope should be assigned, and will have the “RD_” prefix.

Similarly, where rear yards are simulated they shall be defined with the “RY_” prefix, and represent the tributary area to the specific inlet in question.




6.3 DRY WEATHER FLOW

6.3.1 EA Modelling

To generate dry weather flow, InfoWorks input includes Baseflow, which represents dry-weather groundwater infiltration, Population, and Trade Flow per subcatchment. These fields work in tandem with the Waste Water Group, where Per Capita Flow Rate and weekday/weekend diurnal patterns are derived from each available flow monitoring area. The flow monitoring analytical processing completed as per Appendix C is the basis for deriving the baseflow, diurnal patterns, and initial per capita rates. If large Industrial-Commercial-Institutional (ICI) usage exists within the Study Area, these flows may be derived from known population data, design equivalent population, water consumption data, or directly as Trade Flows if data exists.

Population data may be provided as address points with defined population per address, or from census-based polygon ‘tracts’, broken up by residential and employment figures. For these studies, distribution of population shall be estimated based on land use and water consumption data. Ultimately, the values assumed must be confirmed through the calibration phase, to provide justification of the resulting population distribution and per capita rates.

Future growth horizon assessment requires adjusted population values to be derived from City Planning data as available. All increased population (that is the difference between future population and baseline) shall be applied to the model as a separate subcatchment with a new associated Waste Water Group profile based on the average 240 L/c/d and the existing flow monitor diurnal pattern. If a new pipe is being sized, 450 L/c/d shall be used as a factor of safety.

6.3.2 Development Reviews

For development application reviews, dry weather flows may be added as a point-source static flow in the field “Additional Foul Flow”, based on the total design-sheet peak flow, only where no storage elements exist in the downstream system. If storage exists, a population approach is required.

6.4 WET WEATHER FLOW

6.4.1 Storm Runoff Surfaces

The storm and combined sewer systems collect overland flow through catchbasins and direct connections from downspouts. This section describes the runoff hydrology approach preferred by the City for basement flooding modelling.

The Runoff Surface defines the basic hydrologic parameters (runoff volume method, hydrologic routing method, initial abstraction or initial loss, surface roughness, and runoff coefficient) for various surface types. In North America, use of the Stormwater Management Model (SWMM)




routing procedure is most common and has been used for past City flood studies. Normal SWMM surface definitions include:

• Impervious with Depression Storage (i.e. roads, parking lots, etc.) • Impervious without Depression Storage (i.e. roofs) • Pervious (grassed areas with initial abstraction, infiltration, evaporation)

In InfoWorks, these concepts are implemented as types of Runoff Surfaces where parameters are applied and combined by area coverage within each subcatchment to generate a total runoff hydrograph. Subcatchments are defined by a single “Land Use” type, which is made up of varying combinations of Runoff Surface types. The following are the standard Runoff Surface categories to be used in basement flooding models.

The categories represent a set of parameters specific to their Surface Type, and have been set up to allow for variations in the parameter per Type so that calibration can be performed on select subcatchments. For example, the “50” series are devoted to pervious surfaces, where surfaces 50 through 59 can be defined with unique variations of parameters to reflect local conditions. This is demonstrated with surface 50 for poorly-draining soils, and 51 for well-draining soils, which is reflected in modifications to the Horton infiltration parameters. In this way, up to 9 different variations can be simulated in a single model per surface, allowing flexibility in the calibration process.

The proponent will develop an impervious layer in GIS based on the ESM data, orthoimagery, and the building footprint layer, which should include an attribute to identify the type of impervious surface (i.e. roads, sidewalks, parking lots, roofs). For roofs, the downspout connectivity status and receiving sewer are required to help delineate the subcatchments.

The following provides specific guidelines for the runoff hydrology parameters, further described in Appendix B.1.

No. Runoff Surface Type Description

10 Impervious - General Roads, Sidewalks, Parking Lots, Patios

20 Roofs – Disconnected Sloped roof area, not connected to collection system

30 Roofs - Connected Sloped roof area, directly-connected to collection system

40 Flat Roofs Flat roof area

50 Pervious Surface - HSG C-D Pervious area with poorly-draining soils (clays, silts)

51 Pervious Surface - HSG A-B Pervious area with well-draining soils (sandy, loamy)




InfoWorks Parameter Description Runoff Surface Number

10 20 30 40 50 51

Runoff Routing Value Manning’s Roughness 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.410 0.410

Runoff Volume Type Runoff Volume Model Fixed Fixed Fixed Fixed Horton Horton

Surface Type Impervious vs. Pervious Imp. Imp. Imp. Imp. Perv. Perv.

Ground Slope Surface Slope (m/m) 0.01 0.33 0.33 0.001 0.01 0.01

Initial Loss Value Initial Abstraction (m) 0.002 0 0 0 0.005 0.005

Fixed Runoff Coefficient Proportion of Surface Area 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 - -

Horton Initial Initial Infiltration (mm/hr) 75 200

Horton Limiting Limiting Infiltration (mm/hr) 5 20

Horton Decay Exponential Decay (1/hr) 2.0 2.0

Horton Recovery Dry Recovery (1/hr) 2.0 2.0

Of the above parameters, the most sensitive to affecting the runoff hydrograph is the Fixed Runoff Coefficient. Theoretically, this value should be 1.0 however experience has demonstrated that under extreme events the resulting flow in the system may be over-estimated thus necessitating adjustment to this value to match flood records during the extreme event validation process. This value shall not be lower than 0.75, and should be scrutinized where less than 0.80 to assure appropriate model set-up and connectivity. See Section 7.

6.4.1.1 Width Parameter

In SWMM, Width refers to the characteristic width of the overland flow path for sheet flow. As this parameter is uncertain within an urban environment, it may be appropriate to apply the default which assumes the width is the radius of an equivalent circular drainage area so is independent of subcatchment shape. For the micro-drainage environment this assumption is considered adequate; however, this value may be adjusted to improve fit to measured hydrographs although it is not highly sensitive on small subcatchments. For large lumped subcatchments for external areas, the value shall be calculated with supporting documentation for the suitability of this parameter to represent the actual flow path(s) of the subcatchment. As a guide, the City of Ottawa recommends using 225 m/ha to represent a typical residential subdivision.

6.4.1.2 Subcatchment Slope

The slope default is calculated based on the overland channel that connects downstream of the receiving node. The default is appropriate for small subcatchments, however should be reviewed for consistency and appropriateness in larger subcatchments. Not typically a highly sensitive parameter.




6.4.2 Sanitary Infiltration and Inflow

There are several methods for representing the impacts of wet weather flow on the collection system. Some methods are more suitable than others, depending on availability of data and desired degree of modelling (high-level vs. detailed). The City’s currently preferred method of generating wet weather flow in the sanitary system is the RTK method. Approval and justification is required should the proponent wish to use another approach. RTK parameters shall apply only to the area-based subcatchment.

6.4.2.1 RTK Method

The RTK unit hydrograph method calculates infiltration and inflow entering the sanitary sewers during wet weather events. The RTK method generates a hydrograph based on precipitation data and catchment area. The total I/I in the sanitary sewer system is determined by combining triangular unit hydrographs from three components of flow:

• Rapid inflow (short-term response)

• Moderate infiltration (medium-term response)

• Slow infiltration (long-term response)

The following three parameters describe the shape and volume of runoff that enters the sanitary sewer:

• “R” is the fraction of precipitation that becomes direct inflow

• “T” is the time to peak of the hydrograph

• “K” is the ratio of the recession time to time to peak.

“R” can be equated to the area under the unit hydrograph curve and represents I/I volume per unit area as a fraction of precipitation. The InfoWorks CS model allows for the direct input of RTK parameters on a separate tab, as demonstrated below.



Calibration, Validation and Performance Analysis Version 1.02 - October 2014

7.0 CALIBRATION, VALIDATION AND PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

The following process should be followed when completing the model calibration and validation.

7.1 CALIBRATIONS

The general process for model calibration is to calibrate the dry weather flow first, followed by wet weather flow sanitary calibration. The final element is the combined and/or storm system calibration. The flow monitoring data review/processing are the main component of calibration.

7.1.1 Dry Weather Flow

Examine the flow monitoring data to find at least two (2) periods of at least three (3) days with minimal precipitation (less than 1mm), and preferably with minimal antecedent moisture conditions. Use these dry periods to compare the model simulation against the observed data for each monitor as input into the Flow Survey Group. The Graph Template is used to map model and monitor locations. Using the Observed and Predicted Graph Report (see graphic), evaluate the resulting graph plots containing peak depth, velocity, flow, and volume metrics.

The hydrographs should be similar in size and shape – if they are not, check to ensure that the correct pipe has been selected for comparison. Document the percent difference of each trial.

Adjust the parameters (baseflow, diurnal patterns, per capita flow rate, population) as considered applicable to obtain a good fit between the simulated and observed flow, making sure to keep the per capita rate within a reasonable range (100 to 450 L/c/d). The goal should be to best represent the higher flow periods of the year should there be seasonal variation, which may result in poorer fits at other part of the year. It is up to the modeler to select the most representative set of parameters given the nature of the study is to replicate flooding during extreme events. Peak flow, volume and depth should match within a range of +/- 10%.




Differences will sometimes persist due to field conditions or issues with the monitoring data. Document the final results for each flow monitoring site in terms of tabular/graphic goodness of fit, and Observed vs. Predicted plots.

7.1.2 Sanitary Wet Weather Flow

For calibration and verification of wet weather flow, it is important to select storm events that produce adequate response in the system. A minimum of three (3) storm events are necessary and they should have differing characteristics in terms of intensity and duration. Also, sufficient time must pass between events for flow to return to dry weather conditions. For more details, refer to WaPUG User Note No. 6. The proponent should target events greater than 15 mm where possible, and even greater where feasible to capture the indirect extraneous flow connections to the sanitary system that are only revealed under larger events. Comparison to all nearby rain gauges may be required to confirm event spatial response.

Develop RTK parameters such that the total R of the base three unit hydrographs sum to a reasonable value, as derived from the flow monitoring analysis (hydrograph separation techniques). For the sanitary system alone, the total R should be less than 4% unless significant deficiencies exist in the system and/or roofs and foundation drains are highly connected to the sanitary. The shape of the individual unit hydrographs shall also be reviewed to ensure they are physically representative of the three characteristics responses. Automated curve--fitting techniques must be reviewed and confirmed for suitable, realistic shapes.

For combined systems, a combination of direct runoff surface and RTK may be required to fully represent the system response in terms of shape and volume. See 7.1.3 for more on storm flow.

For the chosen events, compare the model simulation against the observed data. Document Observed vs. Predicted plots and goodness-of-fit metrics (peak depth, velocity, flow and volume), in order to iteratively adjust the RTK parameters to achieve the following criteria:

• Non-instantaneous Peak flow matches within -15% to +25%

• Volume matches within -10% to +20%

• Depth matches within -10% to +20%

• The modelled hydrograph’s shape should closely resemble the shape of the observed hydrograph for the duration of the event

If the calibration criteria cannot be met, the proponent must investigate potential explanations for the discrepancy and provide supporting justification for use of the selected parameters. It is understood that the RTK methodology has its limitations in that by definition the characteristic shape cannot represent all forms of event types. The objective should be to best represent the more intense, high volume storms over long-duration, low intensity events.




7.1.3 Storm Flow

Similar to the sanitary wet weather flow calibration, at least three (3) storm events of significant depth and intensity shall be selected for calibrating the storm and/or combined system response. Confirm the sensitivity of the hydrologic parameters to the resulting hydrograph generation, and adjust roughness, width, infiltration and depression storage parameters as necessary. If major discrepancies remain, confirm the model connectivity and all assumptions for roof connectivity and storage, parking lot storage, overland flow paths, and catchbasin distribution/rating curves. Comparison of nearby rain gauges may be required to improve the fit.

Since there is emphasis on the accurate development of actual impervious surface allocation, adjustments to the runoff coefficient should be considered a last resort for small event simulations, defined as those generally less than a 25 year storm. Care should be taken to understand the climatic conditions during the monitoring period, especially near the end of fall/ early spring where snowpack/melt can have a skewing influence on simulation results.

Document the calibration trials and goodness-of-fit, and provide justification for final selection of the calibrated parameters.

7.2 EXTREME STORM VALIDATION

Extreme Storm Validation is the process of checking the calibrated model against historic flood data to determine the ability to replicate these known records of basement and/or surface flooding. This qualitative review provides the supporting evidence that the model is capable of replicating known system deficiencies and can therefore be used to develop remedial solutions.

7.2.1 Historic Rainfall Events

Significant historic rainfall events which were known to cause flooding represent good data for validating the model against low frequency return events. This is an important step in the validation process as it aids in confirming the model's accuracy in predicting flooding against locations with known flooding. Standard historic events are:

• May 12, 2000

• August 19, 2005

• Other storms as defined by the City/Terms of Reference

Local historical rainfall gauge data should be used for the validation of the local area model.

For the sanitary system, adjustments to the RTK parameters may be required if the model results do not indicate elevated hydraulic grade line (HGL) to theoretical basement level. For extreme events, modifications can primarily focus on the first characteristic unit hydrograph parameters,




adjusting the R1 value and/or T1 to enhance the volumetric/peak flow response. Results of the extreme event validation must be conducted in concert with the storm/combined system validations, to help interpret potential factors contributing to flooding, and to prevent stressing the system to meet historic records at the expense of over-estimating flooding elsewhere.

For the storm or combined systems, extreme events typically over-estimate peak flow response which may require the adjustment of the Fixed Runoff Coefficient to help reduce the response. This parameter is highly sensitive and should be adjusted with caution, and should strive not to be lower than 0.75 as this is an indication of faulty model set-up.

Justification of the final “Large Event” model parameters shall be documented with maps comparing simulated vs. recorded flood reports, to be submitted and reviewed by the City prior to advancement of alternative definition. See Section 10.1 for model submission requirements.

7.2.2 Long-Term Historic Data

Long term monitoring data is often recorded at important locations, including CSOs, Pump Stations, off-line storage tanks and the treatment plants. The data is recorded for quality control to ensure that the ancillaries are performing as designed. This data provides useful information to validate the model against specific events or long term network conditions including water levels, bypass/overflow frequency, and pump station on/off status and run times.

7.3 PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS

System performance is related to the level of service criteria for each system type. The City’s criteria in the chronic basement flooding areas has been established as the elevated level of service design criteria approved in the City’s 2006 Work Plan as follows:

• Sanitary Sewer System: The maximum hydraulic grade line (HGL) of the sanitary system shall be maintained below basement elevations (approximately 1.8 m below street centreline) during a storm event equivalent to the May 12, 2000 storm as gauged at the City’s Oriole Yard (Station 102) located at Sheppard Avenue and Leslie Street. This design standard provides an enhanced level of protection against basement flooding from sanitary sewer backup for a storm event with a return frequency between 1 in 25 and 1 in 50 years.

• Storm Drainage System: During the 100-year design storm, the maximum HGL in the storm sewer (minor) system shall be maintained at no surcharged conditions, while the overland flow (major) system shall be maintained within the road allowance and no deeper than the recommended standard as outlined in the Wet Weather Flow Management Guidelines, City of Toronto, November 2006. Should it be infeasible to achieve no surcharge conditions, the maximum HGL shall be maintained below basement elevations during the 100-year design storm.




• Combined Sewer System: Same as the storm system for the 100 year event. Annually, combined sewer overflows must meet the objectives of MOE Procedure F-5-5 for volumetric capture during April to November in continuous simulations.

• Overland flow depths and velocity must be considered for public safety, as below:

Water Velocity (m/s) Permissible Depth (m)

2.0 0.21

3.0 0.09

Based on a 20-kg child and a concrete-lined channel The figure below demonstrates the targeted level-of-service in a typical separated sewer system.

Typically, risk of basement flooding is considered if:

• Surface water level is above the surface elevation (gutter elevation) by more than 300 mm, or where there are reverse-slope driveways, by more than 150 mm

• Surcharge level in the storm sewer is higher than 1.8 m below the surface elevation, which coincides with the assumed basement elevation for homes with direct or indirect basement connections to the storm sewer.

The performance analysis consists of running a suite of design storms and long term rainfall data, and reviewing how the model performs and identifying locations prone to flooding (called a “ramped analysis”). This demonstrates the model’s response to increasing duration and intensity design storms. Tools are available within InfoWorks to calculate statistics, such as the flow at which the first spill occurs at a CSO or frequency that spills occur through a year-long continuous




simulation. CSO’s shall be reported for total flow versus flow captured and sent for treatment to the wastewater treatment plant.

Result presentation shall conform to the guidelines outlined in Section 10.2.

7.3.1 Model Stability

Model stability should be confirmed through several simple checks, including:

• Time Step Log - with this box toggled in the Schedule Hydraulic Run window, a summary of the model stability is presented by way of individual Link and Node summaries of solution convergence failure counts. Elements with high counts should be investigated to determine the need for adjustments to the model set-up.

• Node Simulation Results: confirm % Volume Balance by sorting results in the grid view, and investigating those nodes where the value exceeds 2%.

• Link Simulation Results: confirm reasonable peak velocity results, which may be an indication of model instabilities.



Flooding Improvement Works Definition Version 1.02 - October 2014

8.0 FLOODING IMPROVEMENT WORKS DEFINITION

It is the expectation of all InfoWorks Basement Flooding modelling assignments that full solution improvement works be simulated within the modelling environment. In the EA phase, all proposed alternatives must be coded into the model, independent of its selection as preferred. Similarly in the Detailed Design phase, the model shall be used as the sizing tool to confirm interim functionality of the proposed assignment(s).

The following outline considerations for typical improvement measures to be simulated in the model environment.

8.1 CONVEYANCE IMPROVEMENTS

8.1.1 Catchbasins

The following must be considered when evaluating catchbasin inlet improvements:

• Solutions should minimize the application of inlet-control devices (ICDs) on a system-wide scale due to concerns with their feasibility to implement and susceptibility to vandalism. For guidance, a maximum of 15-20% application of ICDs should be targeted for all CBs in the study area.

• The standard inlet control device is an orifice plate (117.4 mm opening) that limits flow to approximately 40 L/s at the maximum surface ponding depth of 0.30m.

• The impact of inlet control on surface water levels must be considered.

• High capacity inlets should not exceed 250 L/s maximum capture rate unless specifically designed and approved by the City.

• Inlets must be situated within the paved road way and not in the boulevard unless extenuating circumstances permit (in consultation with the City).

• Standard head-discharge relationships are provided in Section 5.2.2.1.

8.1.2 Underground Pipes

Sewers must consider the following when being evaluated and sized as an alternative solution:

• No net increase in receiving sanitary trunk sewer peak flow under wet weather conditions, which can be reviewed collectively from a study area should several connections exist to the trunk.

• The City prefers pipe replacement over pipe twinning.




• The impact of reverse-driveways and roof downspouts. All solutions shall assume 75% downspout disconnection.

• At the EA conceptual design phase, the alignment must consider conflicts from the existing and proposed storm and sanitary infrastructure, along with large diameter watermains. At the Detailed Design phase, all additional subsurface and surface constraints (trees, utilities, etc.) must be considered.

• The EA stage should consider normal sewer design practices regarding profile including provisions for drops across manholes when defining the alignment, versus simply upsizing poorly sloped sewers.

• Pipe sizes shall conform to standard circular or box culvert sizes commercially available where feasible.

• In some design cases where crossing utilities or insufficient cover depth prevent the construction of a circular pipe, an elliptical pipe can be turned 90 degrees to a horizontal elliptical pipe. InfoWorks does not allow this configuration, requiring that a circular pipe of equivalent capacity be modelled. As a result, it must be acknowledged that the HGL will be lower than shown in the modelled profiles.

• The Toronto Sewer and Watermain Design Guidelines (see Appendix E) should be consulted as part of all design processes.

• Improvement works in easements shall be avoided where feasible.

• Conveyance improvements to new storm outfalls shall be considered only in consultation with the City and TRCA.

8.2 STORAGE IMPROVEMENTS

8.2.1 Underground - In-line Storage

Underground in-line storage occurs as “super-pipes”, and should consider:

• In-line storage is typically controlled passively via change in diameter, and can be simulated as a pipe with no extra control measures.

• Should additional control be required, an orifice can be used in-line by adding a new node at the downstream end of the in-line pipe. The pipe length may require manual adjustment in order to allow visualization of the orifice in the model GeoPlan.

• Sanitary in-line storage control is discouraged, however it may be considered in consultation with the City should sufficient capacity exist through the control to pass the




projected future (e.g. 2031) peak dry weather flow without surcharge. The self-cleansing velocity of greater than 0.6 m/s under dry weather flow conditions must be achieved.

8.2.2 Underground - Off-line Storage

• Off-line storage tanks shall be modelled as a Storage node, with defined stage-area dimensions input including a closed tank roof.

• Control structures shall be simulated as either individual orifices and weirs, or through a clearly-defined and documented User Control with Head-Discharge table. The modeler is cautioned on the use of an aggregated User-Control as the hydraulics are computed based on the effective head across the link which can introduce error if the downstream water level exceeds the User-Control Crest level.

• Consideration to the physical piping needs at the EA stage are required to confirm the physical inlet/outlet configurations are feasible with the available grade of existing pipes.

• Consideration must be given to the drawdown time of the tank, considering the possibility of back-to-back storm events. A 12 to 24-hour drawdown time should be targeted. To minimize operations and maintenance requirements, the facility should be designed for storms greater than the 5-year event if possible.

• If gravity drainage is not feasible, introduction of a pump is required complete with estimate of peak flow and duration.

• Location of an underground tank must consider the available publicly-owned space, and siting requires full consultation with Parks and Forestry early in the design process.

8.2.3 Surface Storage Pond

Surface storage elements should consider:

• Open ponds shall be modelled as a Storage node, with defined stage-area dimensions input reflecting the ponds anticipated grading/foot-print.

• If a permanent water surface is intended in the design and outlet structures connected to the node are below this elevation, then the storage element must provide for the total dead and active storage of the pond in its definition.

• Outlet control from the pond can be simulated as a combination of individual orifices, weirs and pipes, or collectively as a clearly-defined and documented User Control with Head-Discharge table. The modeler is cautioned on the use of an aggregated User-Control as the hydraulics are computed based on the effective head across the link which can introduce error if the downstream water level exceeds the User-Control Crest level.




• The Ministry of Environment Stormwater Management Planning Design Manual (2003) shall be referenced for potential integration of water quality enhancement measures where feasible, including permanent pool, forebay, and extended detention.

• Location of a surface storage facility must consider the available publicly-owned space, and siting requires full consultation with Parks and Forestry, and TRCA if applicable, early in the design process.

8.2.4 Design Sensitivity Analysis

The model is typically calibrated to storm events different in nature from the Design Storms applied to define the proposed improvement works. It is therefore good practice to test the sensitivity of various parameters on the preferred solutions model to confirm the potential impact of changes to roughness coefficients, headloss coefficients, and boundary conditions on the proposed solution.



Completed Model Applications Version 1.02 - October 2014

9.0 COMPLETED MODEL APPLICATIONS

As described throughout this guide, a common approach to model development and documentation will facilitate the application of the constructed models for several future needs, as described herein.

9.1 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

A validated hydraulic model provides a good basis for beginning design and construction of solutions recommended by the Basement Flooding EA. Proposed flood mitigation and hydraulic structures can be simulated to determine their effectiveness and provide a basis for making design modifications. The model is a useful tool for determining the sizing necessary to meet design criteria requirements. It also allows for evaluation of system hydraulics in an interim condition where only parts of the solution have been constructed.

Typically, the EA models are provided to the proponent for use in the preliminary design confirmation and final design MOE submissions. The EA solution is refined based on the field and utility survey data collected, and confirmed with revised model simulations in the existing and interim condition state. Final design models are fully documented and returned to the City for future use.

9.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS

Future developments have the potential to increase flooding by removing pervious surfaces and increasing contributions from new population and/or industry. The completed models are to be used to help identify capacity constraints in the system, and to guide development engineers on the extend of impact of their proposals and the criteria for on-site design to mitigate that impact.



Final Deliverables Version 1.02 - October 2014

10.0 FINAL DELIVERABLES

This section outlines the expectation for delivery of final model files and presentation graphics.

10.1 MODEL SUBMISSIONS

All model submissions shall be via InfoWorks CS Compact Transportable Database (*.IWC) without model simulation results or Ground Model Group, to minimize the file size. Therefore all associated Group files required to rerun and analyze the simulations shall be provided as applicable, including:

• Run Group • Rainfall Group (all events/profiles) • Wastewater Group • Trade Flow Group • Level Group (boundary conditions, initial levels) • Inflow Group (boundary conditions, pump inflow, external areas, etc.) • RTC Group • Selection Lists (of EA Projects etc.) • SQL Group • Graph Template Group • Flow Survey Group • Statistics Group

In the InfoWorks CS Database Administrator, by copying the Run file from the Master Database, all associated files needed to run the simulation will automatically be pasted to the Compact Transportable Database. Supporting analysis Groups must be separately selected and pasted.

The proponent and City shall determine the required model files to be generated for the respective project using the forms in Appendix A as a record: Form A-3 for EA models, and Form A-4 for Design Models. This form shall also be used to document receipt and acceptance of the provided hydraulic models and will form part of the final project deliverable.

The submitted InfoWorks files MUST be fully documented in their respective Description Fields, in that they clearly outline the content and pertinent specifics of each Network and model Group. The City will not accept undocumented model submissions. The following provides an example excerpt of a compact transportable database with documentation.




10.2 MODEL RESULTS DOCUMENTATION

The following minimum standard for model documentation must be adhered to when presenting modelling results as thematic maps.

10.2.1 Sewer Flow Model Results

The correlation of flooding is estimated based on the surcharge state of the conduits and the HGL at the nodes relative to a theoretical basement elevation of 1.8 m below ground.

The slope of the HGL at each pipe segment can indicate whether the cause of surcharge is from the sewer being under-capacity (i.e. bottleneck) or the result of backwater from another downstream sewer. Therefore, the “surcharge state” of each pipe shall be colour-coded in all ArcGIS figures as follows:

• GREEN (i.e. surcharge state <1): The pipe is not surcharged, meaning water level is below the crown of pipe).

• YELLOW (i.e. “surcharge state =1): The pipe is surcharged and the slope of the HGL is flatter than the pipe slope, meaning the surcharge is due to backup as a result of an over-loaded downstream pipe.

• RED (i.e. surcharge state = 2): The pipe is surcharged and the slope of the HGL is steeper than the pipe slope, meaning the surcharge is caused by the pipe, which is overloaded and is acting as a bottleneck (flow exceeds its capacity).

The nodes depict the maximum water level (HGL), in the storm sewer system. The HGL as defined at model nodes is categorized as follows:

• GREEN: The HGL is below 1.8 m from the surface, the theoretical basement elevation; for shallow sewers that are within 1.8 m from the surface, the level remains in the pipe.

• YELLOW: The HGL is above 1.8 m below surface, but below the ground elevation.

• RED: The HGL is at, or above, the surface with flooding from the sewer to the street.




10.2.2 Overland Depth Model Results

The overland flow system depth shall be graphically depicted by colour-coding the water level in the overland flow system (links) in three different categories:

• GREEN: From surface to 150 mm above gutter surface - indicates that the flow is contained within the street curbline

• YELLOW: From 150 mm to 300 mm above gutter surface - indicates the water is above the curb but contained within the street right-of-way (public property)

• RED: More than 300 mm above surface - indicates potential surface flooding of private properties and potential basement flooding from surface runoff.

10.3 MODEL DOCUMENTATION FOR FUTURE USERS

The time and effort spent developing a hydraulic model can be wasted if proper documentation for the long-term operation and maintenance of the tool is not prepared. As the state of the practice evolves, specific assumptions applied to model development may change over time thus emphasizing the need for the documentation of data availability and vintage, methodology applied, and all assumptions made for specific model elements of note.

It is critical for both current and future users of the model to have a thorough understanding of the data and assumptions that form the basis of the model. Therefore, thorough records of all data collection, model building, calibration/verification, modifications and results must be summarized in technical memoranda submitted to the City, for any modelling activity.

As time goes on, multiple manipulations of the model will likely occur stressing the importance of record keeping by the City. It is the intent that all supporting model documentation will be hyperlinked on the City server to the corresponding version of the model-build. This supporting documentation will further clarify internal model notes and descriptions.

10.4 GEODATABASE SUBMISSION

As discussed in Section 2.2 and recorded in Form A-2 in Appendix A, a project geodatabase shall be submitted as part of the EA assignments. Appendix D.2 outlines the specific field metadata requirements to be incorporated into the City’s existing Feature Class data. Form A-2 shall be used to document the receipt



Appendix A Project Sign-off Sheets Version 1.02 - October 2014

PROJECT SIGN-OFF SHEETS Appendix A

The following sheets shall be used for documenting and tracking the sources of information, and will form part of the submission to the City as confirmation of model development activities that have or have not been undertaken.

Note: forms included in these guidelines are provided for information only. Refer to the corresponding RFP for each project/study for the correct forms to be submitted to the City.

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx A.1



FORM A-1: TYPICAL DATA SOURCES

Sec# Data Received (yy/mm/dd)

Comments

2.2.1 Base Layers

• Parcel Fabric with Land Use Designation ☐ __/__/__

• Address Points with Water Billing Records ☐__/__/__

• Population (current and projected future) ☐__/__/__

• Orthoimagery ☐__/__/__

• Digital Elevation Model (DEM) ☐__/__/__

• Topographic Contours (0.5m) ☐__/__/__

• Building Footprint Polygon ☐__/__/__

• Road Centreline Polyline ☐__/__/__

• Other ☐__/__/__

2.2.2 Sewer Asset Geodatabase • Manholes and Junctions ☐__/__/__ • Sewers ☐__/__/__

• Catchbasins and Leads ☐__/__/__ • Outfalls ☐__/__/__ • Special Structures ☐__/__/__

2.2.3 Operation & Maintenance Data

• Historic Basement Flooding Records (point) ☐__/__/__

• Historic Hansen Work Order Logs (point) ☐__/__/__

• CCTV Records from the Past 10 Years (polyline) ☐__/__/__

• Smoke/Dye Testing Reports/Results ☐__/__/__

• Recent Sewer Improvement Works (polyline) ☐__/__/__

2.2.4 Flow Monitoring Data

• Rain Gauge Locations layer (point) ☐__/__/__

• Rain Gauge depth time series ☐__/__/__

• Flow Monitoring flow, depth and velocity time series (where available)

☐__/__/__

2.2.5 Other Supporting Data

• Previous Studies (pdf or hard copy) ☐__/__/__

• Geotechnical Reports or Data, including the historic Golder Borehole Database

☐__/__/__

• Planning Reports/Information for New Development and/or Redevelopment

☐__/__/__

• InfoWorks Models related to the Study ☐__/__/__




FORM A-2: FIELD SURVEY

Sec# Task Required1 Submitted

2.2.1 Address Survey Purpose: To view each residential property from the curb to document: 1. Downspout connectivity 2. Possibility of downspout disconnection 3. Downspout discharge location 4. Reverse driveway 5. Poor lot grading 6. Flat roof

1. ☐ 2. ☐ 3. ☐ 4. ☐ 5. ☐ 6. ☐

1. ☐ 2. ☐ 3. ☐ 4. ☐ 5. ☐ 6. ☐

2.2.2 Catchbasin Survey Purpose: To confirm accuracy of the City’s Asset Database, and to characterize: 1. Type (single/twin/sag) 2. Grate Style

1. ☐ 2. ☐

1. ☐ 2. ☐

2.2.3 Manhole Cover Survey Purpose: To check for perforated covers with an emphasis on locations within overland flow paths(particularly at low points), and confirm accuracy of the City's asset database.

• ☐

☐

2.2.4 Low Point Survey Purpose: To confirm location, potential ponding depth, and direction of overflow of critical low-lying areas subject to water accumulation.

• ☐

☐

2.2.5 Outfall/Surface Drainage Structure Survey Purpose: To document physical attributes and field conditions of each storm sewer outfall and associated drainage infrastructure such as culverts. Information to be inventoried include: 1. Type (Endwall/Headwall/Free Outlet) 2. Shape and measured dimensions 3. Material 4. Structural Condition and blockage/submergence 5. Downstream erosion/conditions

1. ☐ 2. ☐ 3. ☐ 4. ☐ 5. ☐

1. ☐ 2. ☐ 3. ☐ 4. ☐ 5. ☐

2.2.6 Field Chamber/Facility Inspection Purpose: To collect field information on chambers identified to contain special structures, those identified through engineering validation, or Pump Stations. Chambers typically require confined space entry. Document measurements, photos and field inspection sheet.

• ☐

• ☐

2.2.7 Resident Questionnaire Purpose: Prepare a questionnaire and distribute through the Public Consultation Unit to all residents in the Study Area to gather additional information regarding downspout and sump pump connectivity, history of flooding, source or nature of past flood water, and other notable observations related to surface and basement flooding.

• ☐

• ☐

1. Required field activities to be determined for each assignment as per the Terms of Reference, in consultation with the City. See Section 2.2.




INFOWORKS CS BASEMENT FLOODING MODEL SUBMISSION STANDARDS

All model submissions shall be via InfoWorks CS Compact Transportable Database (*.IWC) without model simulation results, to minimize the file size. Therefore all associated Group files required to rerun and analyze the simulations shall be provided as applicable, including:

• Rainfall Group (all events/profiles) • Wastewater Group • Trade Flow Group • Level Group (boundary conditions, initial levels) • Inflow Group (boundary conditions, pump inflow, external areas, etc.) • RTC Group • Selection Lists (of EA Projects etc.) • SQL Group • Graph Template Group • Flow Survey Group • Statistics Group

In the InfoWorks CS Database Administrator, by copying the Run file from the Master Database, all associated files needed to run the simulation will automatically be pasted to the Compact Transportable Database. Supporting analysis Groups need to be selected to be pasted.




FORM A-3: EA MODEL SUBMISSIONS*

Req’d MODEL Submitted Accepted

Existing Condition - Wastewater Calibration

☐ • Wastewater Dry Weather Calibration Period 1 ☐

☐ • Wastewater Dry Weather Validation Period 2 ☐

☐ • Wastewater Dry Weather Validation Period 3 ☐

☐ • Wastewater Wet Weather Calibration Event 1 ☐

☐ • Wastewater Wet Weather Validation Event 2 ☐

☐ • Wastewater Wet Weather Validation Event 3 ☐

☐ • Wastewater Extreme Event Validation 1 ☐



Existing Conditions - Storm Calibration

☐ • Storm Wet Weather Calibration Event 1 ☐

☐ • Storm Wet Weather Validation Event 2 ☐

☐ • Storm Wet Weather Validation Event 3 ☐

☐ • Storm Extreme Event Validation 1 ☐



Design Event Existing Conditions

☐ • Wastewater Dry Weather ☐

☐ • Wastewater Dry Weather Future Horizon ☐

☐ • 5 Year Storm ☐


☐ • May 12, 2000 at Gauge 102 ☐

☐ • May 12, 2000 at Gauge 102 (Future Horizon) ☐

EA Preferred Solutions

☐ • Wastewater Dry Weather ☐

☐ • Wastewater Dry Weather Future Horizon ☐


☐ • May 12, 2000 at Gauge 102 ☐

☐ • May 12, 2000 at Gauge 102 (Future Horizon) ☐

* See model submission standards on page A.3 and Section 11.1.




FORM A-4: DESIGN MODEL SUBMISSIONS (PER ASSIGNMENT)

Req’d MODEL Submitted Accepted

EA Verification - Existing Conditions

☐ • Wastewater Dry Weather ☐ ☐

☐ • 5 Year Storm ☐ ☐


☐ • May 12, 2000 at Gauge 102 ☐ ☐

EA Verification - Assignment Conceptual Design



☐ • May 12, 2000 at Gauge 102 ☐ ☐

Preliminary Design - Per Assignment Bundle



☐ • May 12, 2000 at Gauge 102 ☐ ☐

Final Design MOE Submission



☐ • May 12, 2000 at Gauge 102 ☐ ☐

* See model submission standards on page A.4 and Section 10.1.



Appendix B Hydrologic and Hydraulic References Version 1.02 - October 2014

HYDROLOGIC AND HYDRAULIC REFERENCES Appendix B

B.1 HYDROLOGY

Resource tables of common parameters with Source Reference for model input

B.1.1 Manning’s Roughness - Surface Flow

The Manning’s roughness coefficient for surface runoff is also known as the runoff routing value in InfoWorks CS. In some previous City studies, a value of 0.41 was used for pervious areas to represent the variation of lawns, woodlots, gardens, etc. Connected roofs are assumed to be rough shingles or gravel. For a disconnected roof, a value between the roof and pervious value can be selected to account for the dampening effect of the pervious surface over which the downspout will discharge.

Surface Manning’s n

Published Values Previous City Studies

Concrete/Asphalt 0.010 – 0.013 0.013

Pervious (Bermuda Grass) 0.30 – 0.48 0.410

Connected Roofs - 0.015

Disconnected Roofs - 0.300

From: Water Resources Engineering by Chin (2000), Table 6.15 Hydrology and Floodplain Analysis (2nd Ed.) by Bedient and Huber (1992), Table 4.2

B.1.2 Initial Abstraction

The initial abstraction, also known as initial loss or depression storage in InfoWorks CS, is the theoretical depth of rainfall that will accumulate on a surface before runoff begins. This is the initial component of a rainstorm that is ‘lost’ to wetting the ground and forming small puddles in minor depressions and irregularities in the ground surface. A conservative approach assumes no depression storage for roofs. The following parameters shall guide the input of suitable initial abstraction values for Basement Flooding projects.

Surface Initial Abstraction

Published Values Previous City Studies

Impervious 0.2 – 2.5 mm 2 mm

Pervious 2.5 – 7.6 mm 5 mm

From: SWMHYMO User’s Manual by J.F. Sabourin & Associates Inc. (2000), Table A7 Stormwater Conveyance Modeling and Design (1st Ed.) by Haestad Methods Inc. (2003), pg 110

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx B.1



B.1.3 Infiltration Parameters

Past City InfoWorks flooding studies have used the Horton infiltration methodology to determine the ‘loss’ of precipitation to groundwater or vegetative transpiration. The proponent is welcome to recommend alternative infiltration loss methods for consideration and approval by the City in advance of application within the model.

The Horton parameters are based on soil type and published values are often classified by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG). These groups are based on the soil’s runoff potential where “A” has the smallest runoff potential (sand) and “D” the greatest (clay). These parameters are not highly sensitive in an urban model where the peaky impervious response dominates. The following table provides guidance for the selection of suitable parameters.

Infiltration Parameter MTO Design Chart 1.13* InfoWorks Help File

HSG “C” HSG “D” HSG “C” HSG “D”

Initial (mm/hr) 125 75 125 76

Limiting (mm/hr) 5.0 5.0 6.3 2.5

Decay Rate (hr-1) 2 2 2

*From MTO Drainage Management Manual (1997), Table 1.13

B.1.4 Design Storm Events

The City of Toronto harmonized Intensity-Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves (2006) are used to define the design storm hyetographs to be used for the system assessment of level-of-service. For the purposes of the design storm analyses, the 6-hour Chicago storm distribution with 10 minute time steps and ratio to peak r=0.38 shall be applied to all future flooding projects. This synthetic rainfall distribution is representative of typical summer rain storms over urban areas, is suitable for simulating realistic peak flows, and has sufficient volume for assessing storage elements. The following graphics present the City’s IDF parameters and 100 year design storm hyetograph, followed by the May 12, 2000 Design hyetograph.

The City of Toronto will provide the design storms in InfoWorks format as part of a Compact Transportable Database file.




RainfallMin (mm/hr)

Synthetic Design Storms>100yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>50yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>25yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>10yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>5yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>2yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1

Max (mm/hr)Synthetic Design Storms>100yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>50yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>25yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>10yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>5yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>2yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1

Rainfall depth (mm)Synthetic Design Storms>100yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>50yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>25yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>10yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>5yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1Synthetic Design Storms>2yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38), 1

0.000 242.831 85.1850.000 217.613 76.3380.000 183.851 64.4950.000 157.413 55.2200.000 127.705 46.4780.000 85.420 32.253

Produced by deadie (10/4/2014 1:58:20 PM) Page 1 of 1 Rainfall Event: >City of Toronto Standard Data>Rainfall Group - Toronto BF Studies>Synthetic Design Storms>100yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38) (9/12/2014 1:59:55 PM) Rainfall Event: >City of Toronto Standard Data>Rainfall Group - Toronto BF Studies>Synthetic Design Storms>50yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38) (9/12/2014 3:00:53 PM) Rainfall Event: >City of Toronto Standard Data>Rainfall Group - Toronto BF Studies>Synthetic Design Storms>25yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38) (9/12/2014 1:59:24 PM) Rainfall Event: >City of Toronto Standard Data>Rainfall Group - Toronto BF Studies>Synthetic Design Storms>10yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38) (9/12/2014 1:59:07 PM) Rainfall Event: >City of Toronto Standard Data>Rainfall Group - Toronto BF Studies>Synthetic Design Storms>5yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38) (9/12/2014 1:58:51 PM) Rainfall Event: >City of Toronto Standard Data>Rainfall Group - Toronto BF Studies>Synthetic Design Storms>2yr6hr10minChicago(r=0_38) (9/12/2014 12:35:28 PM)




6-Hour Chicago Design Storms (Time Step =10min, R=0.38) Time Intensity (mm/hr)

2-Year 5-Year 10-Year 25-Year 50-Year 100-Year 0:00 1.222 1.681 1.902 2.222 2.630 2.935 0:10 1.299 1.789 2.027 2.367 2.802 3.126 0:20 1.389 1.915 2.170 2.535 3.000 3.348 0:30 1.495 2.062 2.340 2.733 3.234 3.609 0:40 1.620 2.238 2.542 2.969 3.514 3.921 0:50 1.773 2.452 2.788 3.256 3.854 4.301 1:00 1.963 2.718 3.095 3.615 4.279 4.775 1:10 2.209 3.061 3.491 4.078 4.826 5.386 1:20 2.536 3.522 4.023 4.699 5.562 6.207 1:30 3.001 4.177 4.782 5.586 6.611 7.378 1:40 3.724 5.197 5.967 6.969 8.249 9.205 1:50 5.031 7.051 8.127 9.492 11.235 12.537 2:00 8.392 11.837 13.736 16.043 18.989 21.189 2:10 85.42 127.705 157.413 183.851 217.613 242.831 2:20 17.300 24.648 28.880 33.730 39.924 44.551 2:30 8.534 12.040 13.971 16.318 19.315 21.553 2:40 6.001 8.427 9.734 11.369 13.457 15.016 2:50 4.720 6.607 7.609 8.887 10.519 11.738 3:00 3.931 5.490 6.308 7.367 8.720 9.730 3:10 3.391 4.727 5.420 6.330 7.493 8.361 3:20 2.995 4.168 4.772 5.574 6.597 7.362 3:30 2.691 3.740 4.276 4.994 5.911 6.596 3:40 2.450 3.400 3.883 4.535 5.368 5.990 3:50 2.253 3.123 3.563 4.161 4.925 5.496 4:00 2.089 2.893 3.296 3.850 4.557 5.085 4:10 1.948 2.697 3.071 3.587 4.245 4.737 4:20 1.829 2.529 2.878 3.361 3.978 4.439 4:30 1.725 2.384 2.710 3.165 3.746 4.180 4:40 1.633 2.255 2.562 2.993 3.542 3.953 4:50 1.552 2.142 2.432 2.840 3.362 3.751 5:00 1.480 2.041 2.315 2.704 3.201 3.572 5:10 1.414 1.950 2.211 2.582 3.056 3.410 5:20 1.355 1.867 2.116 2.472 2.925 3.264 5:30 1.302 1.792 2.030 2.371 2.807 3.132 5:40 1.253 1.724 1.952 2.280 2.698 3.011 5:50 1.208 1.661 1.880 2.196 2.599 2.900




May 12, 2000 Historic Event - Measured @ Gauge 102 (Oriole) Time mm/hr Time mm/hr 05-12-2000 at 00:45 7.2 05-12-2000 at 22:00 12 05-12-2000 at 00:50 2.4 05-12-2000 at 22:05 2.4 05-12-2000 at 01:10 2.4 05-12-2000 at 22:10 2.4 05-12-2000 at 02:40 2.4 05-12-2000 at 22:20 2.4 05-12-2000 at 02:45 9.6 05-12-2000 at 22:25 2.4 05-12-2000 at 02:50 4.8 05-12-2000 at 22:30 4.8 05-12-2000 at 02:55 2.4 05-12-2000 at 22:35 16.8 05-12-2000 at 03:00 2.4 05-12-2000 at 22:40 4.8 05-12-2000 at 03:05 2.4 05-12-2000 at 22:45 2.4 05-12-2000 at 03:15 2.4 05-12-2000 at 22:50 7.2 05-12-2000 at 03:30 7.2 05-12-2000 at 22:55 12 05-12-2000 at 03:35 4.8 05-12-2000 at 23:00 33.6 05-12-2000 at 03:40 12 05-12-2000 at 23:05 7.2 05-12-2000 at 03:45 2.4 05-12-2000 at 23:10 21.6 05-12-2000 at 03:50 4.8 05-12-2000 at 23:15 9.6 05-12-2000 at 03:55 2.4 05-12-2000 at 23:20 2.4 05-12-2000 at 04:05 4.8 05-12-2000 at 23:25 2.4 05-12-2000 at 04:10 2.4 05-12-2000 at 23:30 24 05-12-2000 at 04:30 2.4 05-12-2000 at 23:35 96 05-12-2000 at 10:55 2.4 05-12-2000 at 23:40 72 05-12-2000 at 11:00 14.4 05-12-2000 at 23:45 14.4 05-12-2000 at 11:05 50.4 05-12-2000 at 23:50 2.4 05-12-2000 at 11:10 38.4 05-12-2000 at 23:55 2.4 05-12-2000 at 11:15 14.4 05-13-2000 at 00:00 4.8 05-12-2000 at 11:20 9.6 05-13-2000 at 00:05 2.4 05-12-2000 at 11:25 14.4 05-13-2000 at 00:10 2.4 05-12-2000 at 11:30 19.2 05-13-2000 at 00:15 2.4 05-12-2000 at 11:35 2.4 05-13-2000 at 00:20 4.8 05-12-2000 at 11:45 2.4 05-13-2000 at 00:25 4.8 05-12-2000 at 11:50 2.4 05-13-2000 at 00:30 2.4 05-12-2000 at 11:55 2.4 05-13-2000 at 00:35 2.4 05-12-2000 at 12:10 2.4 05-13-2000 at 00:40 2.4 05-12-2000 at 20:15 19.2 05-13-2000 at 00:45 2.4 05-12-2000 at 20:20 14.4 05-13-2000 at 00:50 05-12-2000 at 20:25 2.4 05-13-2000 at 00:55 05-12-2000 at 20:40 16.8 05-13-2000 at 01:00 05-12-2000 at 20:45 14.4 05-12-2000 at 20:50 2.4 05-12-2000 at 21:25 4.8 05-12-2000 at 21:30 7.2 05-12-2000 at 21:35 36 05-12-2000 at 21:40 52.8 05-12-2000 at 21:45 72 05-12-2000 at 21:50 160.8 05-12-2000 at 21:55 40.8




B.2 HYDRAULICS

B.2.1 Manning’s Roughness - Closed Conduit

Refer to the City of Toronto Sewer Design Manual for application of appropriate design parameters for closed conduits. For existing sewer systems, the following table provides guidance on the typical Manning’s ‘n’ parameters for sewers and culverts.

Pipe Material Minimum n Average n Maximum n

Brickwork 0.011 0.014 0.017 Clay, vitrified 0.011 0.014 0.017 Concrete, finished 0.011 0.012 0.014 Concrete, unfinished 0.012 0.014 0.020 Corrugated metal 0.021 0.024 0.030

From: Stormwater Conveyance Modeling and Design (1st Ed.) by Haestad Methods Inc. (2003), pg 227

B.2.2 Manning’s Roughness - Open Channel Conduits

For simulating open channels, composite roughness parameters shall be applied, since there is no ‘top’. The following table outlines the typical value range for Manning’s ‘n’ roughness.

Channel Description Minimum n Average n Maximum n

Lined or Built-up Channels Asphalt 0.013 0.016 - Concrete, troweled 0.011 0.013 0.015 Concrete, unfinished 0.014 0.017 0.020 Corrugated metal 0.021 0.025 0.030 Rubble masonry 0.017 0.029 0.035 Steel, smooth 0.011 0.013 0.017 Excavated or Dredged Channels Earth, straight and uniform 0.016 0.022 0.033 Earth, winding and sluggish 0.023 0.035 0.050 Overgrown with vegetation 0.040 0.080 0.140 Rock cuts, smooth and uniform 0.025 0.035 0.040 Rock cuts, jagged and irregular 0.035 0.040 0.050

Natural Streams Floodplains, pasture 0.025 0.033 0.050 Floodplains, cultivated 0.020 0.035 0.160 Floodplains, trees 0.050 0.080 0.200

From: Stormwater Conveyance Modeling and Design (1st Ed.) by Haestad Methods Inc. (2003), pg 227




B.2.3 Weir Coefficients

See WaPUG User Note 27 for details regarding weir coefficient calculation. A typical value for a standard sharp-crested weir in collection system or stormwater management applications is 1.67.

B.2.4 Minor Losses

Minor losses (headlosses in InfoWorks) are used to define the hydraulic instabilities at structures caused by pipe transitions at maintenance holes or within a pipe, by appurtenances in the flow, or inlet/outlet coverage. General up and downstream losses can be calculated using the InfoWorks auto-inference tool. The headlosses are calculated based on the angle of pipe bends between connecting conduits. Type “Normal” shall be used unless otherwise noted by the practitioner.

B.2.5 Culvert Parameters

The following is taken from Table 9.1 and 9.2 of Normann, Houghtalen, and Johnston, 2001.

Entrance Loss Coefficients for Pipes and Culverts Operating Under Outlet Control Structure Type and Entrance Condition ki

Concrete Pipe Projecting from fill, socket or groove end 0.2 Projecting from fill, square edge 0.5 Headwall or headwall and wingwalls 0.2 Socket or groove end

Square edge 0.5 Rounded (radius = D/12) 0.2 Mitered to conform to fill slope 0.7 End section conforming to fill slope 0.5 Beveled edges (33.7 o r 45 b e ve ls) 0.2 Side- or slope-tapered inlet 0.2

Corrugated Metal Pipe or Pipe-Arch Projecting from fill (no headwall) 0.9 Headwall or headwall and wingwalls (square edge) 0.5 Mitered to conform to fill slope 0.7 End section conforming to fill slope 0.5 Beveled edges (33.7 o r 45 b e ve ls) 0.2 Side- or slope-tapered inlet 0.2




Entrance Loss Coefficients for Pipes and Culverts Operating Under Outlet Control (continued) Structure Type and Entrance Condition ki

Reinforced Concrete Box Headwall parallel to embankment (no wingwalls) Square-edged on 3 sides 0.5 Rounded or beveled on 3 sides 0.2 Wingwalls at 30o to 75o fro m b a rre l

Square-edged at crown 0.4 Crown edge rounded or beveled 0.2 Wingwalls at 10 to 25 fro m b a rre l

Square-edged at crown 0.5 Wingwalls parallel (extensions of box sides) Square-edged at crown 0.7 Side- or slope-tapered inlet 0.2




Constants for Inlet Control Equations

Culvert Shape and/or

Material

Inlet Edge Description

Unsubmerged (Weir Flow) Submerged (Orifice Flow)

Equation K M c Y

Circular, concrete

Square edge with headwall

A 0.0098 2 0.0398 0.67

Groove end with headwall 0.0018 2 0.0292 0.74 Groove end projecting 0.0045 2 0.0317 0.69

Circular, CMP Headwall

A 0.0078 2 0.0379 0.69

Mitered to slope 0.021 1.33 0.0463 0.75 Projecting° 0.034 1.5 0.0553 0.54

Circular Beveled ring, 45 bevels A 0.0018 2.5 0.03 0.74 Beveled ring, 33.7° bevels 0.0018 2.5 0.0243 0.83

Rectangular box

30° to 75 wingwall flares

A

0.026 1 0.0347 0.81 90° and 15° wingwall flares 0.061 0.75 0.04 0.8 0° wingwall flares 0.061 0.75 0.0423 0.82

Rectangular box

45° wingwall flares, d = 0.043D B 0.51 0.667 0.0309 0.8 18° to 33.7° wingwall flares, d = 0.083D 0.486 0.667 0.0249 0.83

Rectangular box

90° headwall with ¾-in. chamfers

B 0.515 0.667 0.0375 0.79

90° headwall with 45° bevels 0.495 0.667 0.0314 0.82 90° headwall with 33.7 bevels 0.486 0.667 0.0252 0.865

Rectangular box

45° skewed headwall; ¾-in. chamfers

B

0.545 0.667 0.0505 0.73 30° skewed headwall; ¾-in. chamfers 0.533 0.667 0.0425 0.705 15° skewed headwall; ¾-in. chamfers 0.522 0.667 0.0402 0.68 10-45° skewed headwall; 45° bevels 0.498 0.667 0.0327 0.75

Rectangular box

45° nonoffset wingwall flares

B

0.497 0.667 0.0339 0.803 with ¾-in. chamfers

18.4° nonoffset wingwall flares 0.493 0.667 0.0361 0.806

18.4° nonoffset wingwall flares; 30° skewed barrel 0.495 0.667 0.0386 0.71

Rectangular box 45° wingwall flares, offset

B

0.497 0.667 0.0302 0.835

w/ top bevels 33.7° wingwall flares, offset 0.495 0.667 0.0252 0.881

18.4° wingwall flares, offset 0.493 0.667 0.0227 0.887




Constants for Inlet Control Equations (continued)

Culvert Shape and/or Material

Inlet Edge Description

Unsubmerged (Weir Flow) Submerged (Orifice Flow)

Equation K M c Y

Corrugated metal 90° headwall

A 0.0083 2 0.0379 0.69

boxes Thick wall projecting 0.0145 1.75 0.0419 0.64

Thin wall projecting 0.034 1.5 0.0496 0.57 Horizontal ellipse,

Square edge w/ headwall

A 0.01 2 0.0398 0.67

concrete Groove end w/ headwall 0.0018 2.5 0.0292 0.74

Groove end projecting 0.0045 2 0.0317 0.69

Vertical ellipse, Square edge w/ headwall

A 0.01 2 0.0398 0.67

concrete Groove end w/ headwall 0.0018 2.5 0.0292 0.74

Groove end projecting 0.0095 2 0.0317 0.69 Pipe arch, CM, 90° headwall

A

0.0083 2 0.0379 0.69 18-in. corner radius Mitered to slope 0.03 1 0.0463 0.75

Projecting 0.034 1.5 0.0496 0.57 Pipe arch, CM, Projecting

A

0.03 1.5 0.0496 0.57 18-in. corner radius No bevels 0.0088 2 0.0368 0.68

33.7° bevels 0.003 2 0.0269 0.77 Pipe arch, CM, Projecting

A

0.03 1.5 0.0496 0.57 31-in. corner radius No bevels 0.0088 2 0.0368 0.68

33.7° bevels 0.003 2 0.0269 0.77

Arch, CM 90° headwall

A 0.0083 2 0.0379 0.69

Mitered to slope 0.03 1 0.0463 0.75 Thin wall projecting 0.034 1.5 0.0496 0.57



Appendix C Flow Monitoring Analytical Processing Version 1.02 - October 2014

FLOW MONITORING ANALYTICAL PROCESSING Appendix C

The following provides some recommended guidance for the expected level of analytical processing to be completed for sewer flow monitoring in support of hydraulic model calibration.

C.1 RAIN GAUGE NETWORK

The City maintains a Rain Gauge Network that changes over time, and historic rainfall records.

Rain Gauge Network (c. 2013/2014)

Historic Rain Gauge Network (c. 2010)

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx C.1



C.2 DATA ANALYSIS APPROACH

Complete the analysis for each flow monitor using available population and sewershed area information, precipitation data, and depth-velocity monitoring results per monitored drainage area. Consider the following items and document in Technical Memorandum No. 1 when assessing the data:

• Drainage Area: To normalize results per flow monitor, the tributary drainage area shall be reviewed to reflect the realistic contributing area given the ground topography and relative location of the sewers. Drainage areas cannot be based solely on Parcel/Lot Fabric.

• Scatterplot: A scatterplot shall be used to assess the data quality of the flow monitor by plotting each individual depth and velocity measurement independent of time on a single graph. Information about equipment and/or system performance can often be revealed based on the observations. The results of this review shall determine the usability of the provided/collected data-sets.

• Average Dry Weather Flow: The observed average dry weather flow diurnal pattern shall be determined, and initial estimates of per capita flow developed based on estimated tributary population and appropriate contributing area.

• Groundwater Infiltration (GWI): GWI must be calculated based on an appropriate method (percentage of minimum overnight flow, Stevens-Schutzbach base flow separation method, etc.) and an average value computed based on a suitable range of dry days, defined as a day where at least the preceding 24 hours contains less than 1mm of precipitation. The rates shall be normalized per hectare of contributing drainage area to allow relative comparison between monitored sewersheds.

• Rainfall Events: The methodology for identifying and selecting rainfall events shall be documented. Each event shall be summarized in terms of start/end time, duration, total accumulated depth and peak intensity, and categorized relative to the City’s design storm IDF curves (e.g. 2 to 5yr event, >100yr). Multiple rain gauges are to be reviewed and compared where appropriate, including cumulative rainfall plots to ascertain differences in gauge operation per recorded event.

• Infiltration and Inflow (I/I): Each rainfall event greater than 15 mm shall be analyzed and separated into I/I and dry weather flow components where data quality is suitable. Any data manipulation to correct perceived errors shall be documented accordingly.

• Peak I/I Rates: The average and peak I/I rate for each monitoring station shall be determined and normalized per hectare of contributing area.




• Volumetric Runoff Coefficient (R-Factor): The volumetric runoff coefficient represents the fraction of precipitation volume that enters the wastewater collection system. The precipitation depths are applied across the estimated contributing drainage area to calculate a total rainfall volume which is then compared against the total area under the separated I/I curve per station.

• Storm Runoff Coefficient: The storm runoff coefficient represents the fraction of precipitation volume over a storm sewershed that generates stormwater runoff.

• Flow Monitors in Series: Monitors in series with corresponding time-lines shall be subtracted to evaluate the intermediary response between meters, where data quality allows.

C.3 FLOW MONITORING DATA REPORTING

For each flow monitoring site, produce flow/velocity/depth/rainfall vs. time graphs which illustrate system response to storm events. Summarize the data analysis for each site for dry and wet weather flow including tributary area, population, average dry weather flow, I/I rates, and runoff coefficients.



Appendix D Metadata Structure Version 1.02 - October 2014

METADATA STRUCTURE Appendix D

This Appendix summarizes the metadata structure for related geodatabase files typically associated with Basement Flooding studies for the City of Toronto. The intent is to provide a minimum basis of standardization for major deliverables exchanged between the City and modelling proponent. Metadata provides a description of the geodatabase fields for help in both interpreting the base fields provided by the City, and standardizing the digital deliverables to be returned and incorporated into the City’s GIS system.

This section is divided into two sections: Data Provided by the City; and Project Deliverables. It is noted that the City currently uses ESRI ArcMap 10.1 as its GIS platform. The proponent to refer to the RFP and consult with the City of Toronto at the onset of each assignment to confirm the platform and any refinements to the Metadata Structure.

D.1 DATA PROVIDED BY THE CITY

As part of the EA modelling assignments, the City will provide a geodatabase of sewer infrastructure asset data. The following outlines the key fields in each of the File Geodatabase Feature Classes typically provided by the City of Toronto.

G1_1_land_use_class (Polygon Feature Class) Parcels with land use, zoning

Field Name Data Type Description

OBJECTID Object ID GIS generated ID

AROLL Text A-Roll Number (planning)

AREA Double Parcel area, m2

PERIMETER Double Parcel perimeter, m

PBLOCK Text

PRIME Text

ZROLL Text Z-Roll Number (planning)

SROLL Text S-Roll Number (planning)

PPTY_CODE Short Integer Property code

CODE_DESC Text Description of the property code

ZONING Text Zoning code

Group Text Simplified land use category

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx D.1



G1_2_water_consumption (Point Feature Class) Address points with water-billing annual consumption records



address_GE Long Integer

EASTING Double Easting coordinate

NORTHING Double Northing coordinate

LOCATION_N Double

SERVICE_DI Text

LOCATION_A Text Address of water meter

SERVICE_ST Text Status of the water meter service connection

ACCOUNT_TY Text Water billing account type

SITE_LOCAT Text Address of water meter

SumOfREADI Double … units?

SumOfCONSU Double … units?

DEDUCTIVE_ Text

ATTENTION_ Text

_water_d Double

Avg_daily_ Double … units?




G1_3_Population_ICI_Projection_2011_2031 (Polygon Feature Class) Polygons with current & projected Employment population


OBJECTID_1 Object ID GIS generated ID

OBJECTID Long Integer Unique identifier

EMPPROJ201 Long Integer

EMPPROJ203 Long Integer

LU_TZ_Inte Double

Proj_Emp_P Double

LU_Group Text Land Use (ICI)

Area_LU_TZ Double

POP_EMP_20 Double Employment population 2011

POP_EMP_21 Double Employment population 2031

G1_3_Population_RES_Projection_2011_2031 (Polygon Feature Class) Polygons with current & projected Residential population




FID_Dissem Long Integer

DBUID Text

DBpop2011 Double

LU_DB_Inte Double

FID_Genera Long Integer

LU_Group Text Land Use (RES)

Area_LU_DB Double

POP_2011_P Double Residential population 2011

POP_2031_P Double Residential population 2031

Pop_projec Double




G1_4_pond (Point Feature Class) Locations of wet and dry ponds




ASSET_ID Text Unique asset identifier

ASSET_TYPE Text Description of facility (wet or dry pond)

ADDR_KEY Long Integer

ADDR_QUAL Text Address description (ie. north side of xxx St.)

POND_NAME Text Name of Pond

TRCA_ID Text TRCA unique identifier

OTHER_ID Text Former municipality unique identifier

STATUS Text Active or Abandoned

OWNERSHIP Text Ownership

MAINTAINED Text Maintained by

DISTRICT Text City District number

DRNGE_AREA Text

SOURCE_ENG Text Drawing number

DESIGN_OBJ Text Pond for storage &/or water quality

CONSTRUCTI Text Construction status

ASSUMED_Y_ Text City ownership, Y or N

PARK_Y_N Text Within a park, Y or N

FENCED_Y_N Text With a fence, Y or N

WARNING_SI Text Warning sign posted

SITE_ALARM Text Site alarmed, Y or N

COA_AVAILA Text

O_M_MANUAL Text Operations manual available, Yes or No

STORAGE_CA Double

MAX_INFLOW Double

MAX_OUTFLO Double

OUTFLOW_TY Text Type of outflow structure

TOTAL_STOR Double




G1_4_pond (Point Feature Class) Locations of wet and dry ponds


PERMA_STOR Double

PERMA_WATE Double

MAX_ACTIVE Double

MAX_ACTI_1 Double

BOTTOM_ELE Double Pond bottom elevation, geodetic m

POND_SURFA Double

CONST_YR Short Integer Year constructed

SWM_REPORT Text Report title

COMMENTS Text

CREATED_BY Text

CREATED_DA Date

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

LINK1 Text

LINK2 Text

LINK3 Text

METADATA Text




G1_4_sewer_CB (Point Feature Class) Locations of storm catchbasins




ASSET_ID Text Unique asset identifier based on coordinates

ASSET_TYPE Text Type of asset (CB)

STRUC_TYPE Text Type of structure


ADDR_QUAL Text Address description

ROAD_GEO_I Long Integer GEO_ID from Road centreline layer

X_ROAD_GEO Long Integer GEO_ID from Road centreline layer for cross-street


OWNERSHIP Text City, private, province

DISTRICT Long Integer City District number

DRNGE_AREA Text


CONST_YR Long Integer Year constructed

TOP_ELEV Double elevation

METADATA Text

COMMENTS Text

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

CREATED_BY Text

CREATED_DA Date

LINK1 Text

LINK2 Text

LINK3 Text




G1_4_sewer_CB_lead (Line Feature Class) Locations of storm catchbasin leads





ASSET_TYPE Text Type of asset (CL)

STRUC_TYPE Text Type of structure (LED)

UP_ASSET_I Text Upstream asset ID

DN_ASSET_I Text Downstream asset ID





STATUS Text Active or abandoned

OWNERSHIP Text City, private, province


DIAMETER Long Integer Diameter, mm

LENGTH Double Length, m

MATERIAL Text Pipe material

DRNGE_AREA Text


METADATA Text

COMMENTS Text

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

CREATED_BY Text

CREATED_DA Date

LINK1 Text

LINK2 Text

LINK3 Text




G1_4_sewer_junction (Point Feature Class) Locations of junction chambers





ASSET_TYPE Text Type of asset (JP)

STRUC_TYPE Text Type of structure

FLOW_TYPE Text STM or SAN






OWNERSHIP Text City, private



COMMENTS Text

OTHER_ID Text

TEMP_ID Text Former municipality ID

HISTORICAL Text

DRNGE_AREA Text Former municipality drainage area ID

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

CREATED_BY Text

CREATED_DA Date

LINK1 Text

LINK2 Text

LINK3 Text




G1_4_sewer_large_chamber (Point Feature Class) Locations of large chambers





ASSET_TYPE Text

ASSC_MH Text Asset ID for access Manhole to chamber






OWNERSHIP Text




COMMENTS Text

DRNGE_AREA Text Former municipality drainage area ID

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

CREATED_BY Text

CREATED_DA Date

LINK1 Text

LINK2 Text

LINK3 Text




G1_4_sewer_line (Line Feature Class) Sewer Lines





ASSET_TYPE Text Type of asset (SL)

STRUC_TYPE Text Type of structure (SL)

FLOW_TYPE Text Sanitary or Storm



ADDR_QUAL Text Street




OWNERSHIP Text City or…


PIPE_SHAPE Text Pipe shape

HEIGHT Double Pipe height (diameter), mm

WIDTH Double Pipe width, mm

LENGTH Double Length, m

DIST_FROM_ Double


MATERIAL_C Text

BEDDING Text Bedding material

INVERT_UP Double Upstream invert

INVERT_DN Double Downstream invert

SLOPE_PERC Double Pipe slope, %

DROP_YN Text Pipe ends with drop MH, Yes

DROP_SIZE Double

DROP_INVER Double Invert at drop, geodetic m





G1_4_sewer_line (Line Feature Class) Sewer Lines



METADATA Text

COMMENTS Text Other comments

HISTORICAL Text

OTHER_ID Text

TEMP_ID Text

DRNGE_AREA Text

LINING_YR Long Integer

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

CREATED_BY Text

CREATED_DA Date

LINK1 Text

LINK2 Text

LINK3 Text

LINING_MAT Text

LINING_YEA Text

LINING_TYP Text




G1_4_sewer_MH (Point Feature Class) Sewer Maintenance Holes





ASSET_TYPE Text Type of asset (MH)




ADDR_QUAL Text Address Description






TOP_ELEV Double Elevation at top of MH, geodetic m

DEPTH Double

MATERIAL Text

FLOW_RESTR Text

SUMP Text



METADATA Text

COMMENTS Text

HISTORICAL Text

OTHER_ID Text

TEMP_ID Text Former municipality ID

DRNGE_AREA Text Former municipality drainage area

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

CREATED_BY Text




G1_4_sewer_MH (Point Feature Class) Sewer Maintenance Holes


CREATED_DA Date

LINK1 Text

LINK2 Text

LINK3 Text




G1_4_sewer_outfall (Point Feature Class) Sewer Outfalls





ASSET_TYPE Text Type of asset (OF)

STRUC_TYPE Text Type of structure (OF)



ADDR_QUAL Text Address Description






TOP_ELEV Double Elevation at top of structure



METADATA Text

COMMENTS Text

HISTORICAL Text

OTHER_ID Text

TEMP_ID Text Former municipality identifier

DRNGE_AREA Text Former municipality drainage area

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

CREATED_BY Text

CREATED_DA Date

LINK1 Text

LINK2 Text

LINK3 Text




G1_4_trunk_sewer (Line Feature Class) Trunk Sewers



OID_ Long Integer

UP_ASSET_I Text Former municipality upstream ID

DN_ASSET_I Text Former municipality downstream ID

OWNERSHIP Text Former Metro Toronto


JURIS Text Former municipality in which sewer is located



PIPE_SHAPE Text Shape of pipe


HEIGHT Double Pipe height, mm

DROP_SIZE Double


INVERT_UP Double Upstream invert, m

INVERT_DN Double Downstream invert, m

LENGTH Double Pipe length, m

SLOPE Double Pipe slope

CONST_YR Date Year constructed



Subtrunk_N Text

geometry_L Double

Don_Studt Text




G1_4_sewer_CCTV (Line Feature Class) Sewers that have been viewed using CCTV



OBJECTID Double Unique identifier


ASSET_TYPE Text Type of asset (SL)




MH_UP_DEPT Text Upstream MH depth, m


MH_DN_DEPT Text Downstream MH depth, m

STREET_NAM Text Street name

ROAD_GEO_I Double GEO_ID from Road centreline layer



DISTRICT Double City District number

PIPE_SHAPE Text Pipe shape

HEIGHT Double Pipe height, mm


SEW_LINE_L Double Pipe length, rounded to nearest decimal, m


DROP_YN Text Pipe ends with drop MH, Yes

DROP_SIZE Double

CONST_YR Double Year constructed

HISTORICAL Text

OTHER_ID Text

ASSET_ID_O Text

LF_NAME_OL Text Street

FROM_STREE Text From Street

TO_STREET Text To Street






CCTV_DATE Date Date CCTV was conducted

CCTV_REVIE Date Date CCTV was reviewed

CCTV_REV_1 Text Reviewer name or Company

CCTV_CONTR Text CCTV contract number

CCTV_VIDEO Text

CCTV_COMME Text Reviewer comments

CCTV_RECOM Text Recommended action (clean, spot repair etc.)

FINAL_RECO Text Final Recommended action (clean, spot repair etc.)

FINAL_RE_1 Text Final reviewer name

DATE_FINAL Date

LATERALS Text Number of laterals in segment

SEWERSTRUC Double

SEWERSERVI Double

SAP_YEAR Text

SAP_PRIORI Double

CWP_YEAR Text

WORK_TYPE_ Text

CONSULTANT Text

CONSULTA_1 Text

CONSULTA_2 Text

RISK_CATEG Text

CONSULTA_3 Text

CWP_SCOPE Text

TRACKING_W Double

TRACKING_C Text

TRACKING_Y Double

TRACKING_1 Text

TRACKING_S Text

CPP_YEAR_J Text






CCTV_PLANN Text

LAST_UPDAT Text

LAST_UPD_1 Date

CREATED_BY Text

CREATED_DA Date

YEAR Text




Address21_23 (Point Feature Class) Address points


FID Object ID Unique identifier

GEO_ID Long Integer GEO_ID from Road centreline layer

EASTING Double Easting coordinate

NORTHING Double Northing coordinate

CREATE_ID Long Integer

ADDRESS Text Address number

NAME Text Extra information about location

LF_NAME Text Street name

FCODE_DESC Text Land Use description

ARC_SIDE Text

DISTANCE Double

FCODE Long Integer Land Use code

ARC_ID Long Integer

LO_NUM Long Integer Lowest number for multiple addresses

LO_NUM_SUF Text

HI_NUM Long Integer Highest number for multiple addresses

HI_NUM_SUF Text

POSTAL_CD Text Postal code

CLASS Text

LINK Long Integer

LFN_ID Long Integer




D.2 PROJECT DELIVERABLES

The project deliverables to be returned to the City in geodatabase format typically include the findings of field survey investigations as described in Section 2.2. The following fields shall be updated or added to the corresponding Feature Class in the submitted geodatabase file.

Field Data to be Added to the Address Point Feature Class Georeference based on the GEO_ID field

Data Fields Description Type

Survey • SURV • Survey completed (YES/NO) • Text

Roof Downspout Connectivity

• DS_STAT • Downspout connection status • Text

• DS_CNCT • Number of Downspouts per house still connected or going underground

• Text

• DS_DCNCT • Number of downspouts per house disconnected

• Double

• DS_OPT • Yes if downspout disconnection appears feasible based on existing lot grading (YES/NO)

• Text

• DS_DSCHR • Drop-down list for location type receiving discharge from majority of downspout

• Text

• DS_CMNTS • Downspout general comments • Text

Reverse Driveways / Poor Lot Grading

• LT_RDWY • Yes if reverse driveway; no if other (YES/NO)

• Text

• LT_PGRD • Yes if poor lot grading; no if good (YES/NO)

• Text

• LT_FR • Yes if flat roof; no if other (YES/NO) • Text

• LT_CMNTS • Open field for comments on lot grading

• Text

Catchbasins

• CB_EXST • Yes if CB exists; no if does not (YES/NO)

• Text

• CB_TYP • Type of CB (single, twin, etc.) • Text

• CB_GRT • Type of CB grate • Text

• CB_CMNTS • Open field for comments on CB • Text




Field Data to be Added to the Sewer_Catchbasin Feature Class Updates/revisions to the physical catchbasin location, georeference based on the ASSET_ID field


Catchbasin Data

• CB_TYPE • Catchbasin type by reference to City or OPSD standards

• Text

• NEW_CB • Mark YES if this is missing catchbasin; i.e. not reported in the provided geodatabase. Missing catchbasins must be included in the file with an approximate location. (YES/NO)

• Text

• REMOVE_CB • Mark YES if the catchbasin does not exist or was not found during the field inspection (YES/NO)

• Text

Field Data to be Added to the Sewer_Line, Sewer_MH or Trunk_Sewer Feature Classes Updates to the physical asset attributes, georeferenced based on the ASSET_ID field


Physical Sewer Network Data

• DATA_SRC • It indicates the source of information that led to the modification, e.g. engineering drawing or field survey

• Text

• ASSMPTIONS • Check this field only if the data modified was assumed for modelling purposes and may not represent actual field data

• Text

• COMMENTS • Specify here which fields were corrected

• Text

Field Data to be Created as a Low Point Feature Class Identify features of recorded low points


Low Point Field Survey

• POND_DEPTH • Depth of ponding occurring at low point, measured in cm

• Double

• OVERFL_TOW • Direction that overflow water flows towards

• Text

• OVERFLO_CMNT • Open field for comments on overflow characteristics

• Text

• OVERFLOW_DIR • Cardinal direction of overflow flow • Text




Field Data to be Created as a Low Point Feature Class Identify features of recorded low points


Catchbasin Field Survey

• NUM_SNGL_C • The number of single CBs at the low point

• Double

• NUM_TWN_CB • The number of twin CBs at the low point

• Text

• CB_GRT • Type of CB grate • Text

• CB_CMNTS • Open field for comments on CB • Text

Field Data to be Added to the Sewer_Outfall Feature Class Updates to the physical asset attributes, georeferenced based on the ASSET_ID field


Outfall Field

Survey

• ASSET_ID • Asset ID at outfall • Text

• SUBMRG • Depth of invert submergence at outfall measured in mm

• Double

• DMNS1 • Pipe diameter (if circular) or width (if not circular), measured in mm

• Double

• DMNS2 • Pipe height, measured in mm • Double

• MATRL • Pipe material • Text

• SCREEN • Indicates whether or not outfall is screened, and if is, what direction the grating is

• Text

• CONDIT • Outfall structural and operational condition

• Text

• EROSION • The state of erosion surrounding the outfall

• Text

• BLCKG • The state of blockages at the outfall • Text

• CMNTS • Open field for comments on outfall • Text

• ENDWL • Yes if endwall structure is present; no if not (YES/NO)

• Text

• VERIFD • Yes if outfall inspected in the field; no if not (YES/NO)

• Text




Field Data to be Added to the Sewer_MH Feature Class Additional information on the MH cover type, georeferenced based on the ASSET_ID field


Perforated MH Cover

• ASSET_ID • Asset ID at outfall • Text

• • •

• • •

• • •

• • •

.



Appendix E External Resources Version 1.02 - October 2014

EXTERNAL RESOURCES Appendix E

The following links are provided for useful external resources, some of which are referenced in this document. The web addresses are current as of 2014, and may be subject to change.

Urban Drainage Group (formally WaPUG): Modelling User Notes

http://www.ciwem.org/knowledge-networks/groups/urban-drainage.aspx

City of Toronto Sewer and Watermain Design Criteria (2009)

http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=87a9bcbff9502410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD

Ministry of Transportation - Drainage Manual (1997)

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/drainage/index.shtml

Ministry of the Environment - Design Guidelines for Sewage Works (2008)

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/design-guidelines-sewage-works

Ministry of the Environment - Stormwater Management Planning and Design Manual (2003)

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/stormwater-management-planning-and-design-manual

de rpt_model-guidelines_final_141023.docx E.1

http://www.ciwem.org/knowledge-networks/groups/urban-drainage.aspx



http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/engineering/drainage/index.shtml

http://www.ontario.ca/environment-and-energy/design-guidelines-sewage-works



city of toronto infoworks cs basement flooding model ......selected the infoworks cs modelling...

Documents