Community
Civil 3D Forum
Welcome to Autodesk’s Civil 3D Forums. Share your knowledge, ask questions, and explore popular AutoCAD Civil 3D topics.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

total inflow and vs. catchbasin flow

13 REPLIES 13
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 14
AC_1980
2891 Views, 13 Replies

total inflow and vs. catchbasin flow

please see attached model, i have a drainage area that generates 1.74 cfs, the inlet reports a total inflow of 1.74 cfs as well, but the outfall report about 19 cfs, because the catchbasin flow is calculated by the model as a 19 cfs number. can someone please explain how that is possible? does not make sense to me how the catchbasin flow is much higher than the total inflowhe same catchbasin, when there are no other incoming pipes to it. there are also no external flows defined.please rename attachment to remove ".txt".

13 REPLIES 13
Message 2 of 14
Wlewinski
in reply to: AC_1980

Put a 100 s.f. ponded area over the catch basin to see if it works.

Walter M. Lewinski, P.E.
Solution Specialist - Civil
MICRODESK, INC.
(800) 336-3375
Message 3 of 14
AC_1980
in reply to: Wlewinski

a coworker of mine researched and found a link from the forum prescribing the same solution:

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-Civil-3D-Stormwater/Storm-amp-Sanitary-Sewer-Analysis-Question...

 

thanks for responding with the "fix". a follow up question would be, is 100 sq.ft ponded area the magic number for every simulation with this kind of setup (structures with SCS)? and if it is, I would like to know the theory behind it. thanks!

Message 4 of 14
Matt_Haokip
in reply to: AC_1980

I am not exactly sure what is the actual field scenario you are trying to model however, a catch basin connected by a direct link to an outfall would actually mean, the inflow at the catcbasin is discharge directly to the outfall without any routing involved. You may want to first stabilize your model before analyzing the results. Please see the instability in your model: http://screencast.com/t/T8YNFnZOud Those spikes in the time series is what is reporting incorrect values.

 

Adding a ponding area of 100 sq.ft seems to stabilize the model however it may not work in every situation.

 

If the field condition is such that the subbasin drains to a catchbasin and then is routed through a conveyance to an outfall, you may as well define the conveyance as a pipe or a channel. 

 

Next, you may want to use Hydrodyanmic routing to obtain the most realistic result. Note that with this routing method, you may need to use smaller routing and reporting time steps. ( I have changed your model to Hydrodynamic routing + changed your direct link to a pipe + reduce your routing time step to 5 seconds and report it every 5 min) Please see the new result: http://screencast.com/t/wyNak9qCV

 

Hope this helps.

If my post answers your question, please mark it as an Accepted Solution, so that others can find answers quickly!



Matt Haokip
Message 5 of 14
rdbauer50
in reply to: Matt_Haokip

I came accross this post and the one referenced in the reply (http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/AutoCAD-Civil-3D-Stormwater/Storm-amp-Sanitary-Sewer-Analysis-Question... and am confused on what the "ponded area" actually is. Now I understand what it is in theory and reality, but how woud we know this from the beginning? Is it not based on the depth of the "surcharge"? If you have 2% in every direction and 0.5 ft of ponding, that is 625 sq ft of ponding area but if you have 0.3 ft of ponding, that is only 225 sq ft. So why would we put in only 100 sq ft? Thanks for your help.

 

Rich

Rich Bauer, MS, PE, SIT, M.ASCE
Engineering Department Manager
RB & Associates Consulting, Inc.
www.rb-associates.net
Message 6 of 14
fcernst
in reply to: rdbauer50

Ponded area is just a constrained cylindrical cross sectional area. Not sure about SSA of course... but SWMM will fill this conceptual cylinder with surcharged nodal flooding volume to whatever height is dictated by the system response.



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 7 of 14
rdbauer50
in reply to: fcernst

I see. So we just need to use the ponded area and the depth it calculates to get the volume of surcharge then just "spread" that volume out over the actual surface of the design. That makes sense but yet seems a little repetative when it comes to having nearly 40 inlets on the site that I have to do that with. I would think that with the integration it has with Civil 3D and the capabilities of Civil 3D that it would calculate that for you. 

 

Thanks for your help and explanation, I am new to this software and was just a little confused. It would be nice is there was more explanation in the "help" documentation as to this and a few other things.

 

Rich Bauer, MS, PE, SIT, M.ASCE

Engineering Department Manager

RB & Associates Consulting, Inc.

Web site www.rb-associates.net

 

 

 

Rich Bauer, MS, PE, SIT, M.ASCE
Engineering Department Manager
RB & Associates Consulting, Inc.
www.rb-associates.net
Message 8 of 14
fcernst
in reply to: rdbauer50

 

 

Now that you seem to have your mind around around that concept. It is not really a cylinder per se, just an amount of constrained area. It's just easier to picture at first as a conceptual cylinder over your junction.

 

The important thing is this ponded area volume will be held up above your junction, until the hydraulic gradient of the overall system response allows this volume to be introduced back down into the system. Therefore, it is not lost from the system.

 

Be aware, caution, this ponded volume is also subsequently impinging its piezometric head relationship on your system as a function of its constrained height...

 

This is how EPA SWMM works, not sure about the SSA implementation.



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 9 of 14
rdbauer50
in reply to: fcernst

Yes I understand its a "conceptual" cylinder. The head must make a significant difference. I tried the Auto Dealership sample that came with SSA 2012 and changed one of the junctions to an inlet and using a ponded area of 1000 sf, the ponded depth is showing to be 0.23 ft which in theory would be 230 cf. However, when I change the ponded area to 100 sf, the depth is now only 0.26 fr which is 26 cf. That is a huge difference and this would skew the number however you feel like it. The issue I am having is that one fo the requirements for the development we are doing is that there is only 0.5 ft of ponding over the inlet in the 10 yr event. I really hate to say it, but unless I get this figured out, I will have to use a completely different program for analysis, which is really sad. 

 

I am looking into the difference between the different methods and the effect on the results. I am using the rational method right now but do have other options that I can choose if I want. I will let you know my results.

Rich Bauer, MS, PE, SIT, M.ASCE
Engineering Department Manager
RB & Associates Consulting, Inc.
www.rb-associates.net
Message 10 of 14
fcernst
in reply to: rdbauer50

Hi There,

 

Unfortunately for now, it just gets more sad and weepy for us engineers regarding the current implementation of SSA for the very typical project scenario that you are working on:

 

  1. The SSA inlet objects do not currently handle surcharged flooding, or "upwelling" flows as shown in the manual. Search for my test in this forum.
  2. To get the correct head relationships for your 40 sag/sump inlets you will need to create little stage/storage curves representing the grading around all of those inlets. This due to the current arms length Import/Export drainage paradigm implementation that the C3D team has chosen to go with so far.

Now, just imagine a better world for a minute, that is if SSA was included in Model space, much as the DTM interactive drainage tools were once included in LDD (see attached file). All the nice grading effort around your inlets could automatically be used from your Proposed surface.

 

The C3D team  has done an absolutely tremendous job with Corridors, SAC, Code Set Styles and Feature Lines for us. I really throughly enjoy using these tools. Now since that implementation is a wonderful success, it is time to get drainage back into Model space, for efficient interactive analysis.



Fred Ernst, PE
C3D 2024
Ernst Engineering
www.ernstengineering.com
Message 11 of 14
rdbauer50
in reply to: fcernst

I agree completely. There is this elaborate program that can do all this analysis using different methods and something as seemingly simple as using a DTM. As part of my thesis several years ago, I interacted with the DTM to using information to perform TR-55 analysis before all this stuff came out, and I am NO WHERE NEAR the level of programmer that is at Autodesk. Hopefully they look at these forums and get ideas of what they need to work on for the next realease. As far as Civil 3D itself, I do not know of any other inhancements that I would need other than what they have already made...other than this interaction with the DTM in SSA. It interacts nicely in C3D to find the catchments and flow paths (wish that was there when I was in my masters!) and everything. We will see...

 

Rich Bauer, MS, PE, SIT, M.ASCE

Engineering Department Manager

RB & Associates Consulting, Inc.

Web site www.rb-associates.net

Rich Bauer, MS, PE, SIT, M.ASCE
Engineering Department Manager
RB & Associates Consulting, Inc.
www.rb-associates.net
Message 12 of 14
Hidden_Brain
in reply to: rdbauer50

i remember based on my testing on recent project work models that this feature does not "affect" results obtained by using the rational method as the computational method. it affects when using SCS TR-20 (and possibly TR-55) with structures (inlets).

 

the last time i faced this issue, i ended up using ponded area 100 sf as recommended by other folks here, and checked each structure/pipe for inflow/outflow mass balance (inflow from drainage area as CiA + bypass from upstream inlet = flow in the downstream pipe and so on). i will run some quick tests using the EPA SWMM computational engine and post back with results when i have time.

Message 13 of 14
rdbauer50
in reply to: Hidden_Brain

From what I am seeing, it does make a difference as far as the Flow Depth. Attached are the 2 "tests" I did. The ONLY difference in the 2 runs is the ponded area. I am using the rational method. The funny thing is that the gutter spread stays about the same but the depth doesn't. I am going to try TR-55 and see what happens.

Rich Bauer, MS, PE, SIT, M.ASCE
Engineering Department Manager
RB & Associates Consulting, Inc.
www.rb-associates.net
Message 14 of 14
dshklovsky
in reply to: Wlewinski

thank you!  it works at least in one case; is 100 a magic number?  or it is a way to estimate it?

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

Rail Community


Autodesk Design & Make Report