Hi, I need to get this situation resolved. I need to verify a stormwater conveyance analysis and I'm puzzled as to why the two models provide different flow capacity values. A consultant provided me a Hydraflow conveyance model that shows "Cap Full" (Capacity Full I presume?) values are substantially larger than "Full Q" values I modeled in StormSHED. The Q values that actually flow through each reach are very close for both programs, but the max capacity values dictate whether or not the conveyance model passes the design criteria. His model passes because his capacity values are so high that it will never overtop, but my StormSHED model says that it fails because my capacity values are much lower. Here are the capacity values for each reach. StormSHED (cfs) Hydraflow (cfs) 17.74 32.65 11.45 25.34 6.28 5.25 2.9 5.33 6.4 5.35 3.25 7.54 3.68 6.74
It was brought to my attention that StormSHED is a gravity- based program so when it computes pipe full capacity, it's based on gravity, not some surcharge. How does Hydraflow compute "Cap Full" values? I don't have a copy of the program so I can't research it. Thanks so much for your time.
Red Flag Submitted
Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts. The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.
Reply To This Thread
Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.
There is proven benefit for product development teams in using an integrated design and data management system.
However, not all product teams can afford, need or want all the various modules in an enterprise PLM system.
Rapid prototyping has become a game-changing innovation for designers, engineers and manufacturers. Previously, the process of creating wood or metal prototypes took weeks or months and the cost was often so prohibitive that designers skipped prototypes entirely and went directly from CAD to tooling. Download Now