This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Problem insert place constraint design (cover minimum) different in SewerCAD

I'm having a problem where really appreciate anyone who can help me. In my network there are collectors sitting in traffic lanes and sidewalks. In traffic lanes the minimum coverage was defined as 0.90 m 0.65 m in the dead. At points where the network passes through the sidewalk to and then back to the sidewalk software projects an overlay of 1.05 m since based of land slope and the minimum slope that could be used to define the overlay of 0.90m. This is true for all portions that have this topology that just set. I tried to impose on the software coverings 0.9 I tell you not to scale that element, where he always makes problems and does not generate error message. In short, these stretch where we go from pavement to track traffic and back up the sidewalk again, the software is not retrieving the depth where the topography permits.

Network.rar

The file is attached.

TY

Anderson Farias

Parents
  • Hello Anderson,

    There are a couple of items of note. First (and most importantly) the flows are very low in the system, with infiltration in the pipes being the primary source of flow. When you are designing the system, it is better to have a more representative loading for the system. Otherwise, there is a good chance that the system will be undersized for normal operation.

    Second, the results appear to fall inside of your design constraints, so the results may be valid (though the zero minimum velocity constraints goes back to point one above, where the system might be under designed for normal operation). I would point you toward the Help documentation topic "Design Priorities" for information on the way that the design constratints are applied. It is possible that a lower cover at some point may violate some higher priority at this location. It is also possible that a change at point A will force a change at point B, where some design priority may be violated. The entire system is interconnected, so the whole system should be taken into account.

    Third, the Design run is not meant to work on its own. Engineering judgment will be needed as well, to help interpret the results. More complicated systems can be subject to this.

    Please let us know if you have any further questions on this.

    Regards,
    Scott

    Answer Verified By: Anderson Farias 

Reply
  • Hello Anderson,

    There are a couple of items of note. First (and most importantly) the flows are very low in the system, with infiltration in the pipes being the primary source of flow. When you are designing the system, it is better to have a more representative loading for the system. Otherwise, there is a good chance that the system will be undersized for normal operation.

    Second, the results appear to fall inside of your design constraints, so the results may be valid (though the zero minimum velocity constraints goes back to point one above, where the system might be under designed for normal operation). I would point you toward the Help documentation topic "Design Priorities" for information on the way that the design constratints are applied. It is possible that a lower cover at some point may violate some higher priority at this location. It is also possible that a change at point A will force a change at point B, where some design priority may be violated. The entire system is interconnected, so the whole system should be taken into account.

    Third, the Design run is not meant to work on its own. Engineering judgment will be needed as well, to help interpret the results. More complicated systems can be subject to this.

    Please let us know if you have any further questions on this.

    Regards,
    Scott

    Answer Verified By: Anderson Farias 

Children
No Data