<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://communities.bentley.com/cfs-file/__key/system/syndication/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>Joshua Hesting's Activities</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/members/ebd4c7c6_2d00_b830_2d00_45ef_2d00_94c9_2d00_2f9567107557</link><description>Joshua Hesting's recent activity</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>Telligent Community 12</generator><item><title>Which SewerGEMS solver is best for sanitary sewer model with lift station that has intermittent high points?</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/226580/which-sewergems-solver-is-best-for-sanitary-sewer-model-with-lift-station-that-has-intermittent-high-points</link><pubDate>Thu, 03 Mar 2022 17:32:47 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:d8e6616b-042e-4e43-a852-57275e8fb089</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Which SewerGEMS solver is best for sanitary sewer model with lift station that has intermittent high points? I currently have a model set up and running the SewerCAD solver EPS, but I am not sure if this is the best solver for the job. I want to be able to check/validate the pressure at high points for the need of Air Release/Vacuum Valves. In the current SewerCAD solver, if appears that when the lift station pump stops running, all flow in the system stops and there is no check for the condition on gravity flow &amp;quot;away&amp;quot; from high points that would have the potential to create a siphon.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>WaterGEMS Tank Controls to Fully Refill Tank Model Problem</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/226250/watergems-tank-controls-to-fully-refill-tank-model-problem</link><pubDate>Wed, 23 Feb 2022 16:39:54 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:86d477c5-2240-4db2-ab28-cb8787ecd389</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi All,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am working on a fairly basin WaterGEMS model that includes a tank. Based on the junction demands, the tank HGL reduces over time. I have a control set where the tank will start to refill when the HGL has dropped by 5 feet. The tank will then stop refilling when it is full. I have a problem with my control set because the tank refill shuts back off again when it reaches the 5ft drop elevation. I need it to continue filling until it is full. See snippets below of my tank properties and the control added. I am thinking I need to adjust my control so that the model knows to keep the tank filling until full.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/8304.a.PNG" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/6746.b.PNG" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>WaterGEMS Model Set Up For Tank Problem</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/219598/watergems-model-set-up-for-tank-problem</link><pubDate>Thu, 16 Sep 2021 14:45:45 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:909bab39-9c7d-419e-b429-af7ba6191a76</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am working on a WaterGEMS model and do not have things set up correctly to model the scenario that I would like to see.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/pastedimage1631802996591v2.png" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The model looks like the above image and the setup that I need to run should be fairly simple in my opinion, but I do not have it set up correctly currently. I will also attach the WaterGEMS model if anyone is able to make changes or edits and send back to me with your suggestions.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;1) The tanks, pipes, and junctions are all located where they should be. Pipe and Junction information is accurate. I don&amp;#39;t think I have my tanks set up correctly.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;2) I need to determine what water surface elevation in the tanks will produce a flow of 9,600gpm at J-5 (each tank has a peak flow of 2,400gpm so the total at J-5 is 9,600gpm).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;3) J-5 can essentially discharge into the atmosphere (or another tank if the model needs it). I just need to be able to generate 9,600 gpm using only the head available in the tanks. The tanks must all have the same water surface elevation and they are 26&amp;#39;x13&amp;#39;. The maximum water surface elevation in each tank is 5.22&amp;#39;. I currently have everything based off an elevation of 100&amp;#39; so max tank elevation is 105.22&amp;#39;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I&amp;#39;m just not sure where to go from here. Do I need to somehow apply an inflow to each tank of 2,400gpm and run that through the system to see how much the tank fills up? Also not sure if I should be using the Steady State or EPS? The piping for this model is all flat and after J-5 it can be assumed that we essentially discharge into the atmosphere (or a very large tank that will not affect design). Any help on how to get a model like this set up would be helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://communities.bentley.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/WGEMS.zip"&gt;communities.bentley.com/.../WGEMS.zip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>SewerGEMS High Continuity Error during specific storm that causes flooding of catch basins</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/213751/sewergems-high-continuity-error-during-specific-storm-that-causes-flooding-of-catch-basins</link><pubDate>Wed, 12 May 2021 04:46:46 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:c4b3a4c6-6b7b-4579-9406-06c1c40ffde1</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello, I have a SewerGEMS model set up to review 2, 10, 100, and 2500 year storm scenario&amp;#39;s. For this model, the explicit solver achieved much better convergence and continuity error results for the 2, 10, and 100 year storms. However, I am seeing very poor results currently when running the 2500 year storm. This storm event results in a few of the catch basins having &amp;quot;overflow&amp;quot; which I think could be a portion of my problem.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The 2500 year storm has to be run so that I can look at the ponding results at the various flooding catchments and verify that the ponded depth does not impact nearby roads/facilities. I am new to reviewing this ponding depth and would be open to any suggestions on how to best set up and review this portion of the model.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Another aspect of the model that appears to be incorrect is the maximum inflow/outflow for each of Basin A and Basin B. 50-60cfs for each basin outflow is expected for each and that roughly appears to coincide with what the flow in the outfall pipes is. However, the pond flex table shows a much larger number for the outflow. Basins A and B also are showing much larger than expected inflows. When running the hydraulic reviewer volume balance on the ponds, the reviewer shows a huge difference in inflow volume vs. outflow volume. I am not sure if this could be related to the overflowing inlets or not, but I am 100% sure on what steps to take next to troubleshoot this model. The problems all seemed to start arising as soon as some flooding of the inlets began happens in the 2500-year event as the other rainfall event have little issue. I have attached the model for reviewing.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://communities.bentley.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/7002.New-folder.zip"&gt;communities.bentley.com/.../7002.New-folder.zip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Flow in Channel Is Lost After Passing Through a Cross Section</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/213731/flow-in-channel-is-lost-after-passing-through-a-cross-section</link><pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 18:57:44 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:b9175c14-ea57-4211-86d7-f902c9e4fd99</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello, I am having an issue with a sewergems model where flow is disappearing after passing through a cross section. The model is attached to this post for viewing. This post relates only to the Existing Conditions (EG) scenarios in the model. After running the 2-YR (EG) scenario it can be seen that the maximum peak flow in Channel CH-26(1) is 21.80cfs. This flow is expected and is what I would expect it to be. However, after passing through CS-34, the maximum peak flow in Channel CH-26(2) is shown as 16.05cfs. This decrease is not expected and there is not a lot of flow being added to the system from CH-28. The expected flow in the channel would be 22-23cfs. If someone can take a look at this model and let me know what they think is going on here that would be very helpful.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://communities.bentley.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/8540.New-folder.zip"&gt;communities.bentley.com/.../8540.New-folder.zip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Ask A Question II</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/achievements/cd3cd235-25c1-476e-bb88-33a5705ca45a</link><pubDate>Tue, 11 May 2021 18:57:46 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:17ef0949-6f8c-4825-a2d4-f1940fe24237</guid><dc:creator /><description>Ask 10 questions in a forum.</description></item><item><title>SewerGEMS Explicit Solver Time Step Critical Elements</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/213490/sewergems-explicit-solver-time-step-critical-elements</link><pubDate>Wed, 05 May 2021 18:33:37 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:c8c20c21-dea0-459b-bd85-ebf06341d45a</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Can someone explain to me what the &amp;quot;Time Step Critical Elements&amp;quot; are when running a SewerGEMS Model with the explicit solver? After a model run when looking through the summary report, there is a section titled &amp;quot;Time Step Critical Elements&amp;quot;. My model shows one element listed here with a % value next to it. What is the significance of this?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/3463.Capture.PNG" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>SewerGEMS Explicit Solver &amp;quot;The crown of the link adjacent to the Start Node is above the top of the node&amp;quot;</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/213415/sewergems-explicit-solver-the-crown-of-the-link-adjacent-to-the-start-node-is-above-the-top-of-the-node</link><pubDate>Tue, 04 May 2021 01:41:21 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:52c4adef-c185-4cec-8862-bb477977785c</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I cannot for the life of me get this warning to disappear from my model. If someone could take a look at the node that is causing an error that would be great. The model contains a double barrel arch CMP pipe as an outlet structure for a pond. The pond outlet structure elevation is set to the same elevation as the crown of the arch pipe, but I am still getting the error message. I have tried raising the outlet structure ground elevation substantially and that did not help either. I am not sure what else to try. None of my other pond outlet structures with culvert outlets had this issue.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://communities.bentley.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/0830.SEWERGEMS.zip"&gt;communities.bentley.com/.../0830.SEWERGEMS.zip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>SewerGEMS Model Help High Continuity Error</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/213400/sewergems-model-help-high-continuity-error</link><pubDate>Mon, 03 May 2021 13:55:18 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:ce86a950-bc94-402c-894a-9761f23d38b5</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hello. The current project I am working on requires a fairly complex SewerGEMS model and I am currently getting a high continuity error. If any of the SewerGEMS experts could take a look at my model and point out some of the areas I need to review that would be very helpful. I will attach the model ZIP. In addition to the high continuity error, several of the catchments send an error message that the calculated peak is higher than the interpolated peak.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The area of the model I have been trying to get a better handle on is the plan North area that drains to Basin A. This model needs to contain a couple of upstream ponds and channels that ultimately drain to Basin A. I have noticed that the inflow graph for Basin A is incorrect and there is a large jump at 3hours into the model run. I have not been able to determine what is causing that jump.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The cross section where channel CH-02A and CH-13 merge also has an error I noticed. In the 2-YR Scenario, CH-13 shows no flow. CH02-A has a relatively small inflow, but after the two merge at CS-5 there is a large jump in the peak flow rate. I have not been able to figure out what is causing that.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If someone has some time to take a quick look at this model and confirm that the areas I have noticed to be problem areas are most likely to be the culprit for a good portion of this model error and offer suggestions on how to fix it would be much appreciated.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thank you in advance.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://communities.bentley.com/cfs-file/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/SEWERGEMS.zip"&gt;communities.bentley.com/.../SEWERGEMS.zip&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>SewerGEMS Runoff Volume Calculation Differences</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/212777/sewergems-runoff-volume-calculation-differences</link><pubDate>Mon, 19 Apr 2021 17:13:14 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:aa1794bc-a35d-477f-b0f8-a18cc68f360b</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi All,&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I have what I hope is a simple question about how the volume of runoff for a site modeled in sewergems is calculated. When I run the scenario for the desired storm in SewerGEMS, the calculation executive summary shows that there is a total inflow volume of 13.3 ac-ft into the site (See image 1). However, when I go into the catchment table for the same scenario, and add up the Volume (Total Runoff) column for the catchments, the result is 13.7 ac-ft. If my interpretation of these two calculations is correct, then it looks like the model is saying that more runoff is leaving the site than stormwater that entered the site (which doesn&amp;#39;t make sense to me). If I could have someone explain to me what is happening here that would be very helpful. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/2804.PNG" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/1346.PNG" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>SewerGEMS Best Way to Connect Conduits to a Channel?</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/207014/sewergems-best-way-to-connect-conduits-to-a-channel</link><pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2020 21:45:18 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:398190a4-a7e1-4e01-b63f-726729e3fb0b</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I am working on a stormwater modeling using SewerGEMS, and I will need to connect a couple of conduits to a channel element (see simple diagram included). I am hoping that someone could show me what the best way to connect these conduits to a channel is. I am new to using channels in SewerGEMS and want to make sure I get this channel set up correctly. It looks like I will need to have at least one cross section to define my channel (it is a uniform channel, so only one is needed unless it is better to use more than one). Each of the conduits will have an end section where they dump into the channel. It looks like I could use either a headwall or an outfall on the end of my conduits. My question then is how to get my outfall/headwall connected to the channel? If someone could set up a diagram similar to what I have provided using SewerGEMS elements that would be great. Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt=" " src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/IMG_5F00_1901.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>SewerGEMS Rational Method Flow Measurement</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/206768/sewergems-rational-method-flow-measurement</link><pubDate>Wed, 02 Dec 2020 14:39:26 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:55095189-5608-40b3-80ed-a2f8b27b56af</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Could someone provide an explanation for me as to why pipe network flow is reduced in the flex table when an additional drainage area with longer time of concentration is added to the network? See included images below. This model is using the rational method solver. In the first image, there is a single drainage area contributing to the network and both CO-1 and C0-2 reflect the flow from that drainage area. However, when a second drainage area is added with a different time of concentration (second image), the flow in the flex tables for CO-2 is greatly reduced. I guess what I am looking for here is the peak discharge through this network? Not sure what I am missing. Thanks.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt=" " src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/3755.PNG" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt=" " src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/3108.PNG" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>Is SewerGEMS Implicit Solver Calculating Catch Basin Surcharge Height Correctly?</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/206717/is-sewergems-implicit-solver-calculating-catch-basin-surcharge-height-correctly</link><pubDate>Tue, 01 Dec 2020 16:08:55 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:0d50666d-99b3-4880-b71f-f19d753abaa6</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;Hi,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am working on a SewerGEMS model and am having trouble understanding how the Hydraulic Grade Line within catchments is calculated. I will include screenshots of the model below. When I run the model and pass a storm event through the storm pipe network, there seems to be less surcharging in the manhole than I would expect. The furthest downstream pipe has a full flow capacity of 67.59cfs and the max flow in the pipe is 106.51cfs. When I do just a quick &amp;quot;sanity check&amp;quot; on this pipe flow I treat it as a quick culvert in Culvertmaster and look at the head. When I run the pipe as a culvert at 106.51cfs the head built up on the pipe is roughly 2 feet. However, when you look at the SewerGEMS profile for this pipe run, the surcharge into the structure is not nearly 2 feet. Maybe my way of performing a sanity check is incorrect, but this is a pretty large discrepancy. Is there something going on in the implicit solver that I do not understand? Any help on this problem will be greatly appreciated! Thanks!&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/8037.pipes.PNG" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/3465.profile.PNG" alt=" " /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>What is being calculated for the Pond Flow (Out to Links Maximum) column within the flex tables for a pond?</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/180683/what-is-being-calculated-for-the-pond-flow-out-to-links-maximum-column-within-the-flex-tables-for-a-pond</link><pubDate>Thu, 06 Jun 2019 16:32:33 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:bb5d26e1-5fdc-4288-ab1d-a966f9c9b387</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;I have a small pond designed in sewergems complete with an outflow structure that discharges to a pipe, which will connect to an existing storm sewer manhole. When I run my design storm through the model I have noticed that the pond Flow (Out to Links Maximum) column in the flex tables does not match the max flow for the outfall pipe. The pond Flow Out to Links Maximum is 10cfs higher than the max flow that shows for the pipe. I am not sure what the Flow Out to Links Max is calculating and would appreciate any input. The outflow curve for the pond matches what the outfall pipe shows for max flow, so I&amp;#39;m a little confused on what SewerGems is calculating for Pond Out to Links Maximum.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Thanks,&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item><item><title>How to model catch basin that acts as both a curb inlet and an area inlet on the back side</title><link>https://communities.bentley.com/products/hydraulics___hydrology/f/haestad-hydraulics-and-hydrology-forum/179876/how-to-model-catch-basin-that-acts-as-both-a-curb-inlet-and-an-area-inlet-on-the-back-side</link><pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2019 14:48:15 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">6dad98f5-dbc9-4c4d-a9ba-e9da8dc6aa8e:809af60b-d29d-44f3-8615-9d9e3b9489cb</guid><dc:creator>Joshua Hesting</dc:creator><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img alt=" " src="/resized-image/__size/320x240/__key/communityserver-discussions-components-files/5925/6840.Capture.jpg" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am working on the design of a storm sewer system that will utilize a unique inlet. The inlet will function as a curb inlet on the road side and an area inlet on the back side. A depiction of the scenario is shown above. Two drainage areas drain to catch basin AA7 shown. The first drainage area is from a road that runs through the site. The second drainage area is a grassed area behind the inlet. The site will be graded such that the road is crowned and one lane will drain to the catch basin (AA7) and the grassed area is graded to drain to the back side of catch basin AA7. The road side of catch basin AA7 will be a curb inlet, and the back side of inlet AA7 will function as an area inlet.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I am looking for the best way to split the flow from these two areas up. The runoff from the road area needs to be applied to the catch basin in an &amp;quot;on grade&amp;quot; setting such that inlet capture, bypass, and spread are checked. The runoff from the grassed area needs to be applied to the inlet in an &amp;quot;on sump&amp;quot; setting such that it is all captured by the inlet and sent to the system (as the back side of this catch basin will not overflow and go into the roadside gutter. I am not sure how to apply a catchment to this inlet so that all the flow goes into the system and is not treated like a curb and gutter section.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>