SWMM5 - Stormwater Management Model

SWMM 5, Watersheds, Water Quality,Hydrology, Hydraulics - Watersheds

SWMM 3,4,5 uses a spatial step equal to the length of the link. Or, in terms of the 1D St. Venant Equation for the calculation of flow used in SWMM 5:



In which is the length of the conduit.

The program will calculate the cross sectional area, hydraulic radius top width and depth at the upstream, midpoint and downstream sections of the link. The link solution is pivoted on the midpoint cross sectional area in the dominant dynamic wave terms and
and the non-linear term in the dynamic wave equation uses the upstream and downstream link cross sectional areas. In the finite difference equation in SWMM 5 the pipe shown below would have one length but use the cross sectional information from the upstream, midpoint and downstream points of the link.

The bend in the pipe would be modeled using the "other" category of losses




Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Option "Define Supercritical Flow By" does inside the SWMM 5 engine. The options are called Slope, Froude and Bothin the GUI and in the engine of SWMM 5. A few other variable definitions you need to know to understand this explanation are: (1) Y1 for the upstream link depth, (2) Y2 for the downstream link depth, (3) Q for the flow in the link, (4)Qfull for the full Manning's equation flow or normal flow for the link based on the bed slope, (5) Froude1 and Froude2 for the Froude Number respectively of the upstream and downstream ends of the link, (6) n for Manning's roughness, (7) Yfull for the maximum depth of the link and (8) Qnormal for the Normal Flow equation flow based on the upstream area of the link (A1) and the upstream hydraulic radius (R1).


In the SWMM 5 engine these options are used after the dynamic wave equation flow is estimated using the St. Venant equation. The option that you choose is only active for those links that have a flow greater than 0, links with negative flow use the dynamic wave equation flow exclusively. It the flow is positive and the link is an open channel and full then the minimum of the dynamic wave flow or Qfull is used as the new flow in the link. If the flow is positive and the depth at the upstream end of the link or Y1 is less than Yfull then the engine will compare Qnormal to Q using the routines in Check Normal Flow.


If the link gets to the Check Normal Flow routines then it uses the following logic:
  • If the Slope or Both option is used or either the upstream node or the downstream node of the link is an outfall AND Y1 is less than Y2 then the minimum of Q from the dynamic wave equation or Q from the Normal Flow equation is used as the current iteration flow in link, or
  • If the Froude or Both option AND either the upstream Froude Number or the downstream Froude number is greater than 1 then the minimum of Q from the dynamic wave equation or Q from the Normal Flow equation is used as the current iteration flow in link. This condition is never used if either of the connecting nodes of the link are outfalls.

How does this work in the actual flow that SWMM 5 estimates for a link? Consider this example in which the link flow in blue is plotted with the Qnormal flow in red and the Q dynamic wave equation flow in purple:

Qnormal is



Qnormal is only calculated when the link is not full so in the plot a Qnormal of 0 means that the pipe was full. At other times the flow in the link was equal to Qnormal as the minimum of the dynamic equation flow or the Qnormal flow is used at each iteration in the solution process. The flow is normally bounded by the Qnormal flow in SWMM 5.0.013. Your choice of the options Slope, Froude andBoth really only impact the conditions under which this comparison is true. If you use Froude or Both then Supercritical flow at either end of the link will trigger this comparison will be the dynamic wave equation flow and the Froude number at each end of the link.


Reply to This

RSS

Latest Activity

tian tian and Hussam joined SWMM5 - Stormwater Management Model
3 hours ago
8 hours ago
Robert E Dickinson added a blog post
MWH Soft Releases InfoWorks and FloodWorks Version 11 New Version Available for Industry-Leading Workgroup Management Modeling Software for Wastewater, Stormwater, Drinking Water, and River Systems Broomfield, Colorado USA, September 8, 2010 MWH Sof…
18 hours ago
mohammed A Alim is now a member of SWMM5 - Stormwater Management Model
yesterday
Robert E Dickinson added a blog post
Creating Clearer Climate Computer Codes by Eli Kintisch on 3 September 2010, 12:01 PM | Permanent Link | 2 Comments EmailPrint|More PREVIOUS ARTICLE NEXT ARTICLE British software engineers Nick Barnes and David Jones have spent the past 3 years t…
on Sunday
Robert E Dickinson just checked out the RSS pages...
(via RSS Pages)
on Friday
August 31
Antony Manoharan is now a member of SWMM5 - Stormwater Management Model
August 31
Robert E Dickinson added a blog post
MWH Soft Releases InfoSewer Version 6.0 for ArcGIS 10 New Version of the Leading Wastewater Modeling and Management Package Leverages Newest Esri Software Broomfield, Colorado USA, August 31, 2010 — MWH Soft, a leading global innovator of wet in…
August 31
------------------------ Build 5.0.020 (08/23/10) ------------------------ Engine Updates 1. A refactoring bug that prevented SWMM from reading rainfall data from external rainfall files was fixed. See gage.c.
August 23
lia almila and Dr. MVRL Murthy joined SWMM5 - Stormwater Management Model
August 22
There are 152 members on SWMM5 - Stormwater Management Model
August 19
SWMM5 - Stormwater Management Model now has leaderboards
August 19
August 17
David Jones is now a member of SWMM5 - Stormwater Management Model
August 17
Robert E Dickinson added a blog post
From the NYT In Weather Chaos, a Case for Global Warming The collective answer of the scientific community can be boiled down to a single word: probably. “The climate is changing,” said Jay Lawrimore, chief of climate analysis at the National Clima…
August 17
You should still adjust the width individually for each subcatchment but compare the peak flows for the combined flows to your monitored data. Unless you want to model S1, S2 and S3 together then you are best off estimating the width for each subcat…
August 15
Thank you for your help. However, the flow measurement was only taken at the outlet of the whole catchment (Out 1). if i want to calibrate the runoff quantity, how can i obtain the width of the whole catchment? Am i combine the total width of subcat…
August 15
Originally, when SWMM was developed the width parameter was the collection length of the subcatchment. For example, it would be the gutter length on a street going to an inlet. In your case one easy way to estimate the Width for the subcatchment goi…
August 14
Chow Ming Fai added a blog post
Hello,I am not familiar on using SWMM for quantity and quality modeling. i need some helps here.I have a problem on calibrating the total width of catchment in SWMM quantity modeling. Figure shown below is my studied catchment. the surface runoff is…
August 14

© 2010   Created by Robert E Dickinson.   Powered by .

Badges  |  Report An Issue | SWMM 5 Blog  |  Terms of Service