• State Verified Answer
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 9 replies
  • Subscribers 83 subscribers
  • Views 5125 views
  • Users 0 members are here
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

Unexpected High Flow - WaterGEM

Yoko
Offline

When I was working on Steady State analysis of a system with 8,310 gallon per day demand, I realized that one node with 2.36 gpm demand had 23.6 gpm demand instead. At that time, steady State was working.  I corrected the demand at that node, which should decrease the total demand by 30,585.6 gallon.  But, when I re-run the steady state, 3,600 gpm flow is trying to go to the node.  We could not figure out why. There is no such demand assigned.

We need to make this model work as soon as possible. I wonder if someone could give us an advice on what to look for.

Yoko

  • 0 Offline
    Hello Yoko,

    This might have to do with the results in the boundary elements. In order to look into this, please send the model. There are two options for sharing your model files on BE Communities. If you would like the files to be visible to other members, compress the files into a zip file and upload them as an attachment using the ‘Advanced Reply editor’ before posting. If your data is confidential, you can follow the instructions in the link below to send it to us via Bentley Sharefile. Files uploaded to Sharefile can only be viewed by Bentley.

    http://communities.bentley.com/content/bentleysecurefilesupload.aspx

    Once you upload this to the Sharefile site, please let us know it is available.
  • 0 Offline in reply to Scott Kampa
    Scott,

    I've just uploaded the model. Thank you for analyzing the problem.

    Yoko
  • 0 Offline
    Scott,
     
    This table shows before (the upper table) I changed the demand at Junction Southeast from 23.6 gpm to 2.36 gpm and the initial elevation of the 3,000 gallon Tank at WTP from 1,397.00 ft to 1,400.86 ft.  The lower table show the results afterword and the initial elevation of the same tank is back to 1,397.00 ft now.  The results did not change much after I change the tank initial elevation back to 1,397.00 ft.
     
    Thanks again for looking at the model.
     
     
    Yoko Nomura, E.I.T.
    Project Engineer
     

    PCE, Inc. | 6120 Earle Brown Drive, Suite 629, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 | www.pce.com
    (763) 560-9133 Phone | yokonomura@pce.com
     
  • 0 Offline in reply to Yoko
    Hello Yoko,

    I assume the scenario that you are running is "1-Stead State Analysis". This appears to have a demand of 2.36 gpm and a tank level of 1397 ft. If you are looking at a different scenario, please let me know.

    When I compute the model as is, I get a "Network Unbalanced" message, meaning the results cannot be trusted. I made a few changes to the calculation options to fix this. First, I increased the number of trials to 100. Second, I set the Damping Limit to 0.01. With this changes, the model was able to compute without an error message.

    After the changes, the pump flow results for pump "PMP-Distribution" was about 47 gpm. Flows in WaterGEMS will always satisfy the demands, but it will also balance the hydraulic grade across the system. The additional flow not going to demand is filling the three tanks downstream of the pump. The general results appear to be reasonable based on what I am seeing.

    Regards,
    Scott

    Answer Verified By: Sushma Choure 

  • 0 Offline in reply to Scott Kampa
    Scott,

    Thank you for your rely. We also found that the head of the pump was too high and that was causing the pump to push a lot of water. We'll change the calculation setting. Should I change this for EPS analysis as well?

    Yoko
Communities
Support and Services
Training and Learning
Social Media