Dears,
I notified a problem when I exported the model from watergems to epanet.
the results of head losses in epanet are different from watergems. I checked the pipe parameters and all stuff and all properties are similar.
why this issue appeared?
Hello Mohammed,
Is it happening for a single model or for all the models?
Please note that in EPANET headloss is reported as unit headloss, meaning it represents the headloss per 1000 ft (or 1000 m) of pipe. Can you please confirm if that is what you are observing?
What are the limitations of importing/exporting EPANET files?
If this doesn't help and it is model specific issue then uploading model files or screenshots of the issue would help.
Regards,
Sushma Choure
Bentley Technical Suppport
Hydrulic Modeling - AOWS-HY-ST-01-C.rar
Hi Sushma,
Thanks for your reply. Herewith both models EPANET and WaterGEMS for your review.
actually., the results in all parameters such as pressure are diffrent but still acceptable, but the variance with the headloss is not acceptable.
I tried to check if any variance happened during importing file the elements' properties but I didn't find any differences.\
Looking for your kindly support
Thanks in advance
I took a look at the times. There is a Unit Headloss field in EPANET, which is the equivalent of the Headloss Gradient field in WaterGEMS. Looking at this field with the same units (m/km in both), the results appear to be the same.
If you are not seeing that, can you give us an example of what you are seeing?
Scott
Hi Scott, Thanks for your support.
I tried to change the units of the result in watergems to m/km but still there is a difference between results. I attached a snap pics for a section of network for your review
I am not seeing the same results that you are in either EPANET or WaterGEMS. As an example of what I am seeing, at pipe P-39, I see a headloss gradient (or unit headloss in EPANET) of 0.42 m/km in both EPANET and WaterGEMS. At pipe P-12, I see a headloss gradient of 0.06 m/km in both programs. There are no labels in the screenshots above, but I believe I have the correct area based on the geometry. There are no scenarios in the model aside from the Base scenario.
One thing I would do is maybe import your EPANET model into WaterGEMS again, just to make sure there weren't unaccounted for changes in either model. You may want to resend the models to us, in case we are looking at a different version of the model compared to what you are currently looking as.