Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 108 PAGE 601 <br />DATE: MARCH 2, 1999 <br />TO: ,TAMES E. CHANDLER <br />COUNTY ADN NISTRATOR <br />FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. �—I <br />;; <br />DIRECTOR OF UM TTY S <br />PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E. <br />AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER <br />BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTHM SERVICES <br />SUBJECT: REQUEST TO PURCHASE WATERCADD HYDRAULIC MODELING <br />SOFTWARE <br />BACKGROUND <br />The approved fiscal year 1998/1999 budget included purchase of a computer program for <br />hydraulically modeling water distribution/wastewater collection systems. We are now requesting <br />authorization to purchase the software package and acquire training for Utilities Department <br />personnel. <br />Presently, all hydraulic modeling is computed using a software program known as Kentucky Pipe. <br />Viewing the model (or modification to the model due to changes in the system) requires <br />coordinating a data file with a system nodal map. This is a very time consuming and awkward <br />process that sometimes results in errors. <br />At the time of purchase (around 1991), Kentucky Pipe was known to be the industry standard for <br />hydraulic modeling. Since then several vendors have developed more "user friendly" software <br />packages that utilize graphical features for developing and viewing models. These modern software <br />programs also allow hydraulic models to be developed by exporting GIS shape files. <br />Two of the most popular programs that offer the newest technologies are WaterCadd and H2ONet. <br />WaterCadd uses an object-oriented architecture, which allows the user to edit design parameters by <br />clicking and dragging graphical objects with a mouse. H2ONet allows graphical modifications <br />through the AutoCadd commands. <br />County staff questioned several engineering consulting firms, as well as other municipal utility <br />departments (Palm Beach County, Seacoast Utilities, Town of Jupiter, etc.) on their experience with <br />the available software packages. The consensus was that the two software packages reviewed were <br />basically comparable. The County's master -planning consultant, Brown and Caldwell, surveyed <br />engineers throughout their organization for a preference between the two modeling programs. In <br />general their opinion was that H2ONet was more suitable for the researcher while WaterCadd was <br />easier to use. <br />In addition, WaterCadd received the "Editors' Choice" award from Cadence magazine, a well - <br />noted journal that evaluates computer aided design software. Based on the above, WaterCadd was <br />chosen over H2ONet due to the simplicity of operation and the quick -edit features. <br />MARCH 9,1999 <br />80 <br />