hydroflow 09 v 10

[Anonymous]

I just recently upgraded to 2010 versions of everything, in the middle of learning 2009. I'm doing a very simple closed drainage system and trying to get everything to work right using the software. When I run my analysis using the 2009 storm sewer extension I get one result (no HGL problems, 1 hydraulic jump), when I run it in 2010 I get completely different numbers for everything and the design that worked (I know it works) ends up failing!

What changed between the two versions to make this happen??

The other hang up is trying to get the HGL into my profile in C3D. I started by making my network, then exporting to a stm file, run an analysis on that, and tried to import it back to C3D. Problem is when I import it it creates a new network instead of updating the original one I exported. This wouldn't be a big deal except that when I import the stm file it changes the size of the pipes and custom structures it was using when it did the analysis and replaces it all with a smaller pipe and generic structures! If I have to go thru and modify the pipes and structures each time it'll hardly be worth it and I'll probably just plot the HGL by hand.

Anyone have any input on how to pull this all together and get it to work?

[Matt.Anderson]

Yes, there are changes between 2009 and 2010. One of the changes is so that HGL and EGL values can be stored in the STM file.



Are you running metric? Have you opened a support case? Can you provide a copy of the files attached here 2009 and 2010 versions?



As for importing your STM file - yes there are big changes that need to be made to your Pipe List, and the creation of the pipe matching etc.



I would suggest starting to read the User Guide, page 1293 Moving Pipe Network Data Between AutoCAD Civil 3D and Storm Sewers



Matthew Anderson, PE

[Anonymous]

i am having the same problem, my 2009 systems are "undersized" in the 2010 stormsewer runs. is there a fix to this?

[Matt.Anderson]

tkhege24728 -



Let me venture a guess but your 2009 "designs" are/were never run with the Enhanced Modeling System? I will also likely venture that your pipe velocities exceed your minimum design code?



The 2008/2009 doesn't complete the iteration to find the appropriate system travel time. Your calculation likely show pipe travel time equal to the minimum velocity along the pipe lenght, hence your flows are likely smaller.



I haven't checked yet, but I assume that this was fixed in 2010.



Is there a fix, sure, run EMS when you are done with your design in 2009.



Matthew Anderson, PE

[Anonymous]

incorrect, i did run the enhanced modeling system. anything else??

[Matt.Anderson]

Ok, would you care to elaborate on the your design problem? Maybe post your files and reports?

[jalneal]

I think I can elaborate - it appears that there is a major math error, AT LEAST on my machine with the current configuration. Anyone that has a difference should hand calculate a couple sections, and compare their full flow capacities.

I am running Civil3d 2010 w/ Hydraflow Storm Sewers on Windows 7 RC, 64 bit.

Just ran a pipe ntwork. I am looking at a simple culvert (not a part of a larger network in any way) Concrete pipe, english units. Mannings full flow would give me a flow of 127 cfs out. Hydraflow storm sewers is telling me that the capacity is 12.73 CFS, EXACTLY 1/10th of the full flow capacity. I checked 4-5 other pipes, same exact problem, exactly 1/10th off. Hopefully someone knows a workaround?

There used to be math errors in Hydraflow Hydrographs years ago, before Autodesk bought it, such as odd structure behaviors at the elevation 990 (We had to add 1000 to everything to get correct answers.) Good idea to check a couple by hand. Say this had been the other way around and C3d 2009 far underdesigned the pipes and you got this version. Millions of dollars of pipe nationwide could have been installed wrong, and the liability by tradition would have fallen on the engineer's shoulders. It's not just an Autodesk issue, very important to verify program calculations.

After a little more analysis, looks like design and enhanced analysis both give the discrepancy. If you run capacity only, the HGL's come much closer to being inline with what would be expected. Edited by: Alan Neal on Jun 29, 2009 1:01 PM

[Matt.Anderson]

Here are identical files computed with side by side in Hydraflow 2008 and 2010 using Enchanced Modeling System. The flow rate and pipe capacities are equal.



I can make them un-equal running Analysis with Design. The 2008 product as well as 2009 will erroneously overestimate the pipe travel time thereby reducing the intensity that the system recieves. The 2010 product appears to come a closer to the EMS model, but it isn't 100% there. (2010 calculates a system Tc of 17.21 minutes vs 2008's 28.57 minutes, Enhanced Modeling balances at 16.54 minutes in both products)

Alan, What does the Run Capacity Only report? I will gladdly review your model if you would like me to look at it. One difference appears to be the slope at which your pipe runs and the downstream depth - it appears to be a steep slope for flow.

Matthew Anderson, PE
anderson at jaseng dot com Edited by: Matt.Anderson on Jun 29, 2009 2:18 PM

[jalneal]

Ah, I just read the Capacity only help and I see why - the HGL was pretty close to my hand calcs so I assumed it must be calculating correct but Capacity only just sets the flows to a full flow equivalent (which makes sense they are close - I designed my pipe system for full flow capacity.)

I was getting really perplexed for a minute here, because your numbers look entirely correct.

However, PROBLEM SOLVED! Hopefully this will be a solution for several others. Considering the only value that is linear in Mannings, I looked for manning's coefficient, and indeed - it is 0.13, explaining the exact 10x flow difference. This came in automatic from pipes, so I'm assuming maybe its a problem with my part migration settings. Thank you Matt, for sending that and ruling out a version error.

[Matt.Anderson]

Glad you found your error. Parts Lists in Civil 3d included an optional setting for Mannings - ours is currently Zero to avoid confusision and simple "why would I need to set that now" concern from a couple of years ago when we set our part list up. The Civil 3d templates out of the box suffer the opposite problem - Mannings values exceedingly high.

Matthew Anderson, PE

[BrianHailey]

I don't know why you are seeing what you are seeing but I tried to recreate it on my system and this is what I got.

Brian Hailey
http://www.cad-1.com
http://www.AtYourDeskTraining.com

[Anonymous]

Brian -

He found the issue in the Mannings number. It was off by a factor of 10..

BrianHailey wrote:
> I don't know why you are seeing what you are seeing but I tried to recreate it on my system and this is what I got.
>
> Brian Hailey
> http://www.cad-1.com
> http://www.AtYourDeskTraining.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[annw2]

I noted that the Manning's values were completely off in 2010 when I opened my 2009 file at home.

It might be because I haven't customized the 2010 structure library yet.