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

Run a model in Sewergems for both dry and wet conditions


I am using SewerGEMs ( - Connect Edition Update 3) to analyse the hydraulic behavior of a small urban catchment in EPS mode (24h analysis) under both dry and wet weather conditions. 

1) I am creating two different scenarios, one with sanitary loading at the area's manholes and a zero depth storm event under the Rainfall-Runoff alternative and another with a two-hours duration storm event of a return period equal to 100 years in the Rainfall-Runoff alternative and the sanitary loading. Is this the correct way to model both dry and wet conditions? I noticed that I could not run the model without defining a storm event. Or do I have to define in Active Topology alternative that all catchments, gutters and catch basins are inactive for the dry conditions scenario?

2) For the wet conditions scenario, I defined a storm event of 2-hours duration using Storm Data - Time depth in Components menu. To set the 2-hours event at the beginning of the simulation interval (first two hours of the 24h simulation period), I distributed the storm event using alternating block model (Time-Depth) in the first 2 hours and prolonged the event up to the end of the 24h interval (daily simulation) setting the cumulative storm event depth to 0 mm. And then in the Rainfall-Runoff alternative I defined a Global Rainfall event of 100 years return period represented by the aforementioned event. Is this correct? Or am I missing something? How can I treat a two-hours storm event starting lets say 6 hours after the begging of the simulation? Is there a simple way to define this i.e. in Options field?

3) When I run the model I get a User Notification that (20284) Element 78 "Link has adverse slope" (I am attaching the model in Secure File Upload - Small Urban catchment.rar). However, for this conduit this seems not to be true. What is happening there? Results, especially for Depth/Rise (%) for all conduits at manhole 25181 seem wrong. 

Thank you in advance,


Parents Reply Children