I am creating a steady state hydraulic model in WaterCad model. I want to skeletonize it by removing branch pipes but still accounting for the demands associated to them by placing that demand at the node upstream of the branch that I eliminate. Reason for skeletonizing is that less pipes makes the model easier to maintain and easier to operate given license constraint on amount of pipes. However even a steady state model can be used for a variety of things. I want to know if there are applications of a steady state model that I lose by skeletonizing the model in the described manner.
If you have WaterCAD and are manually skeletonizing the model, you would want to do it in such a way that you are left with a hydraulically equivalent model. If you are collapsing branching (and lumping downstream demands at the end of the collapsed branch) then you would only be missing out on results in this branches. For example if you had a particularly high elevation at the end of a branch that would experience low pressure, you would not be able to assess that if you simplify/collapse those branches. You would also want to avoid collapsing branches that contain other things beyond simple demands (for example tanks, control valves, etc) so as to account for the impact that those things could potentially have on the rest of the modeled system.
There may be additional guidance on the general topic of simplification, in our book Advanced Water Distribution Modeling and Management (see this).
Regards,
Jesse DringoliTechnical Support Manager, OpenFlowsBentley Communities Site AdministratorBentley Systems, Inc.
Answer Verified By: Christen Crique