SWMM-USERS Digest - 21 Jun 2008 to 25 Jun 2008 (#2008-114)

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Automatic digest processor

unread,

Jun 26, 2008, 12:00:40 AM6/26/08

to Recipients of SWMM-USERS digests

There are 6 messages totalling 1096 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

1. SWMM ver. 5.0.013 (6)

**********************************************************
* To sign off, email to: list...@listserv.uoguelph.ca *
* In the body of the message type: signoff swmm-users *
**********************************************************

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:44:00 -0400
From: Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Thanks Robert,

One question regarding the modified DW routing procedure. In submission of FIS map modifications, one is require to provide a "duplicate effective model" producing the same results as the original study. Does this mean that you would necessarily have to use the specific version (ie: 9, 11,...) for which the original study was developed?

Bradley S. Vance, PE
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
4100 Center Pointe Drive, Suite 112
Fort Myers, Florida 33916
(p) 239-277-0003 (f) 239-277-1211
(e) bva...@ectinc.com
P Think Green & please print this e-mail only if necessary.

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Robert E Dickinson
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:43 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad,

The SWMM 5 data input files are not backwards compatible with previous versions of SWMM - you cannot open a file created in v13 with a v11 GUI without getting messages about Options or features present in v13 but not present in v11. Not everyone looks at the C code but the new options are listed in the file enums.h with a version notation:

SKIP_STEADY_STATE, TEMPDIR, IGNORE_RAINFALL, //(5.0.010 - LR)
FORCE_MAIN_EQN, LINK_OFFSETS,
//(5.0.012 - LR)

The good feature about this message is that it tells you what MAY be different between the two SWMM versions. For example, if you used Link Offsets in v13 then you will not have a valid model in SWMM 5.0.011.
However, if you are not using a new option in SWMM 5.0.013 then you will have a valid backwards compatible SWMM 5.0.011 input data set.

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/18/2008 12:28 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
[SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I was running a previous model from ver. 11 in ver. 13 and got differing flow values at a number of nodes. When trying to re-open in ver.
11, I got the following error message:

Error Report for File Z:\ENGINEERING
PROJECTS..................DP_South-West-SR80.inp
Unrecognized keyword (LINK_OFFSETS) at line 29:
[OPTION]
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH

Are there any computational issues or otherwise with ver. 13?

Thanks

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:18:14 -0400
From: Chris Hauser <CHa...@JHENG.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad-

I know that in the case of HEC-RAS, you do not have to (nor should you necessarily want to) use an older version of the program. However, the core hydraulic computations in HEC-RAS have changed very little, while the various routines in SWMM have been tweaked more often.

Have you already tried to duplicate the SWMM results and run into problems? If so, I would suggest trying to get some guidance from FEMA or their review engineers at Baker, as they are the ones who will have the final say in any FIS or FIRM revision requests.

(I'm assuming the original FEMA study was done using SWMM; if it was done using HEC-RAS, you may have a more difficult time getting FEMA to approve a different model.)

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM> 6/25/2008 8:44 AM >>>
Thanks Robert,

Brad,

SKIP_STEADY_STATE, TEMPDIR, IGNORE_RAINFALL, //(5.0.010 - LR)
FORCE_MAIN_EQN, LINK_OFFSETS,
//(5.0.012 - LR)

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/18/2008 12:28 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
[SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I was running a previous model from ver. 11 in ver. 13 and got differing flow values at a number of nodes. When trying to re-open in ver.
11, I got the following error message:

Error Report for File Z:\ENGINEERING
PROJECTS..................DP_South-West-SR80.inp
Unrecognized keyword (LINK_OFFSETS) at line 29:
[OPTION]
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH

Are there any computational issues or otherwise with ver. 13?

Thanks

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system. E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is available at WWW.JHENG.COM

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 08:33:20 -0700
From: Mark Boucher <mb...@PW.CCCOUNTY.US>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I've never hear of SWMM being used for a FIS or LOMR. Has anyone done
this?

Mark Boucher

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Chris Hauser
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 6:18 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad-

I know that in the case of HEC-RAS, you do not have to (nor should you
necessarily want to) use an older version of the program. However, the
core hydraulic computations in HEC-RAS have changed very little, while
the various routines in SWMM have been tweaked more often.

Have you already tried to duplicate the SWMM results and run into
problems? If so, I would suggest trying to get some guidance from FEMA
or their review engineers at Baker, as they are the ones who will have
the final say in any FIS or FIRM revision requests.

(I'm assuming the original FEMA study was done using SWMM; if it was
done using HEC-RAS, you may have a more difficult time getting FEMA to
approve a different model.)

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM> 6/25/2008 8:44 AM >>>
Thanks Robert,

One question regarding the modified DW routing procedure. In submission
of FIS map modifications, one is require to provide a "duplicate
effective model" producing the same results as the original study. Does
this mean that you would necessarily have to use the specific version
(ie: 9, 11,...) for which the original study was developed?

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Robert E Dickinson
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:43 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad,

The SWMM 5 data input files are not backwards compatible with previous
versions of SWMM - you cannot open a file created in v13 with a v11 GUI
without getting messages about Options or features present in v13 but
not present in v11. Not everyone looks at the C code but the new
options are listed in the file enums.h with a version notation:

SKIP_STEADY_STATE, TEMPDIR, IGNORE_RAINFALL, //(5.0.010 - LR)
FORCE_MAIN_EQN, LINK_OFFSETS,
//(5.0.012 - LR)

The good feature about this message is that it tells you what MAY be
different between the two SWMM versions. For example, if you used Link
Offsets in v13 then you will not have a valid model in SWMM 5.0.011.
However, if you are not using a new option in SWMM 5.0.013 then you will
have a valid backwards compatible SWMM 5.0.011 input data set.

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/18/2008 12:28 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
[SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I was running a previous model from ver. 11 in ver. 13 and got
differing flow values at a number of nodes. When trying to re-open in
ver.
11, I got the following error message:

Error Report for File Z:\ENGINEERING
PROJECTS..................DP_South-West-SR80.inp
Unrecognized keyword (LINK_OFFSETS) at line 29:
[OPTION]
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH

Are there any computational issues or otherwise with ver. 13?

Thanks

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use
of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the
sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free
or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is
available at WWW.JHENG.COM

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:49:43 -0500
From: "Gregory P. Kacvinsky" <Greg.Ka...@CLARK-DIETZ.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

FEMA does accept SWMM as a modeling technique for floodplain mapping
(including EPA SWMM, XP-SWMM, MIKE-FLOOD, among others). The list of
nationally-accepted models is available at:

http://www.fema.gov/plan/prevent/fhm/en_hydra.shtm

In some situations, a SWMM model is developed for an urban channel
because it's an ideal platform to model the contributing sewer systems
AND a receiving channel. Sometimes the modeler is asked to submit a
LOMR application and must determine whether to try to use the SWMM model
or convert to the more traditional HEC-RAS. This is a difficult
decision, as bridge modeling and floodway modeling is a lot more
efficient and straightforward using HEC-RAS, and sometimes the
conversion is worth the upfront effort.

If submitting a SWMM model for a LOMR application, be careful to
evaluate the impacts of system storage (due to surface flooding,
detention ponds, and other storage off-line from the studied stream) as
FEMA reviewers may or may not allow that type of flow attenuation for
calculating the peak flow rates for the 100-year flood profile. My
experience says that FEMA normally counts publicly-controlled flood
control facilities (i.e. dams, regional ponds) as storage, but
privately-owned facilities (as are most detention ponds in many cities)
may not be allowed to be included.

If anyone has recent experience with privately-owned stormwater
detention in a watershed model (with respect to a FEMA review for a
LOMR/CLOMR), I would like to hear how you dealt with it. For many of
our clients, there is significant private storage volume in their
watersheds, and that really has an impact on peak flow determination.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory P. Kacvinsky, P.E.
Clark Dietz - Engineers
217-373-8934
-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Mark Boucher
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 10:33 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I've never hear of SWMM being used for a FIS or LOMR. Has anyone done
this?

Mark Boucher

Brad-

I know that in the case of HEC-RAS, you do not have to (nor should you
necessarily want to) use an older version of the program. However, the
core hydraulic computations in HEC-RAS have changed very little, while
the various routines in SWMM have been tweaked more often.

Have you already tried to duplicate the SWMM results and run into
problems? If so, I would suggest trying to get some guidance from FEMA
or their review engineers at Baker, as they are the ones who will have
the final say in any FIS or FIRM revision requests.

(I'm assuming the original FEMA study was done using SWMM; if it was
done using HEC-RAS, you may have a more difficult time getting FEMA to
approve a different model.)

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM> 6/25/2008 8:44 AM >>>
Thanks Robert,

One question regarding the modified DW routing procedure. In submission
of FIS map modifications, one is require to provide a "duplicate
effective model" producing the same results as the original study. Does
this mean that you would necessarily have to use the specific version
(ie: 9, 11,...) for which the original study was developed?

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Robert E Dickinson
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:43 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad,

The SWMM 5 data input files are not backwards compatible with previous
versions of SWMM - you cannot open a file created in v13 with a v11 GUI
without getting messages about Options or features present in v13 but
not present in v11. Not everyone looks at the C code but the new
options are listed in the file enums.h with a version notation:

SKIP_STEADY_STATE, TEMPDIR, IGNORE_RAINFALL, //(5.0.010 - LR)
FORCE_MAIN_EQN, LINK_OFFSETS,
//(5.0.012 - LR)

The good feature about this message is that it tells you what MAY be
different between the two SWMM versions. For example, if you used Link
Offsets in v13 then you will not have a valid model in SWMM 5.0.011.
However, if you are not using a new option in SWMM 5.0.013 then you will
have a valid backwards compatible SWMM 5.0.011 input data set.

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/18/2008 12:28 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
[SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I was running a previous model from ver. 11 in ver. 13 and got
differing flow values at a number of nodes. When trying to re-open in
ver.
11, I got the following error message:

Error Report for File Z:\ENGINEERING
PROJECTS..................DP_South-West-SR80.inp
Unrecognized keyword (LINK_OFFSETS) at line 29:
[OPTION]
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH

Are there any computational issues or otherwise with ver. 13?

Thanks

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use
of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the
sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free
or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is
available at WWW.JHENG.COM

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:33:14 -0600
From: "Dennis, Mark" <Mark....@ARCADIS-US.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I used SWMM 5 for a LOMR in Shaker Heights, Ohio (inner ring suburb of Cleveland). Many decades ago, a stream which ran through the center of the City had been enclosed in a large storm sewer. The original FIS was completed after the storm sewer was constructed. The FIS for the drainage way was performed by hand by adding flow through the sewer to overland flow calculated by Manning's equation. The City had recently hired another consulting firm to restudy the entire watershed in SWMM. This study was then submitted to FEMA through the LOMR process and accepted. As part of another project, my company then sized a parallel sewer using the same SWMM model to lower the 100-year floodplain through a redevelopment area. I don't know how difficult it was to get the first SWMM based LOMR approved. The LOMR approval for our project was relatively straightforward once the FEMA consultant found a reviewer who had a SWMM background.

To address another issue raised, the original SWMM model (and accordingly our parallel sewer model) included perhaps a dozen or more storage nodes which represented above ground storage in street low points. Due to the terrain, this storage was significant. In fact, because of the uncertainty of FEMA's response, the other consultant developed two models (one with and one without above ground storage). Only the storage model was submitted to FEMA, but at one point we sized our parallel sewer using both models. The storage model required a 48" parallel sewer to achieve the desired results whereas the no-storage model required an 84" system.

Mark R. Dennis, PE

ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
Akron, Ohio

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of Mark Boucher
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:33 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I've never hear of SWMM being used for a FIS or LOMR. Has anyone done
this?

Mark Boucher

Brad-

I know that in the case of HEC-RAS, you do not have to (nor should you
necessarily want to) use an older version of the program. However, the
core hydraulic computations in HEC-RAS have changed very little, while
the various routines in SWMM have been tweaked more often.

Have you already tried to duplicate the SWMM results and run into
problems? If so, I would suggest trying to get some guidance from FEMA
or their review engineers at Baker, as they are the ones who will have
the final say in any FIS or FIRM revision requests.

(I'm assuming the original FEMA study was done using SWMM; if it was
done using HEC-RAS, you may have a more difficult time getting FEMA to
approve a different model.)

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM> 6/25/2008 8:44 AM >>>
Thanks Robert,

One question regarding the modified DW routing procedure. In submission
of FIS map modifications, one is require to provide a "duplicate
effective model" producing the same results as the original study. Does
this mean that you would necessarily have to use the specific version
(ie: 9, 11,...) for which the original study was developed?

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Robert E Dickinson
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:43 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad,

The SWMM 5 data input files are not backwards compatible with previous
versions of SWMM - you cannot open a file created in v13 with a v11 GUI
without getting messages about Options or features present in v13 but
not present in v11. Not everyone looks at the C code but the new
options are listed in the file enums.h with a version notation:

SKIP_STEADY_STATE, TEMPDIR, IGNORE_RAINFALL, //(5.0.010 - LR)
FORCE_MAIN_EQN, LINK_OFFSETS,
//(5.0.012 - LR)

The good feature about this message is that it tells you what MAY be
different between the two SWMM versions. For example, if you used Link
Offsets in v13 then you will not have a valid model in SWMM 5.0.011.
However, if you are not using a new option in SWMM 5.0.013 then you will
have a valid backwards compatible SWMM 5.0.011 input data set.

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/18/2008 12:28 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
[SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I was running a previous model from ver. 11 in ver. 13 and got
differing flow values at a number of nodes. When trying to re-open in
ver.
11, I got the following error message:

Error Report for File Z:\ENGINEERING
PROJECTS..................DP_South-West-SR80.inp
Unrecognized keyword (LINK_OFFSETS) at line 29:
[OPTION]
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH

Are there any computational issues or otherwise with ver. 13?

Thanks

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use
of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the
sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free
or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is
available at WWW.JHENG.COM

NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. All rights, including without limitation copyright, are reserved. The proprietary information contained in this e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is intended for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this e-mail in error and that any review, distribution or copying of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original message and any files transmitted. The unauthorized use of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is prohibited and disclaimed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:25:00 -0500
From: "Gregory P. Kacvinsky" <Greg.Ka...@CLARK-DIETZ.COM>
Subject: Re: SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Mark,

I think your situation brings up an important issue with respect to
floodplain mapping (especially when we're using SWMM to model a
watershed).

When is it appropriate to count system storage (due to flooding in
low-lying areas) for the determination of peak flows for the 1% (100-yr)
event? The pure modeler may say that we must account for this storage
(because it defines the wet weather response), but we could also assume
the municipality will eventually improve their internal drainage system
so as to reduce or eliminate surface (flood) storage. This modeling
decision has a very significant impact on estimated peak flows, thus
impacting flood risk determination.

There doesn't seem to be a universally-accepted methodology for this
situation.

Regards,
Greg

Gregory P. Kacvinsky, P.E.
Clark Dietz - Engineers
217-373-8934

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Dennis, Mark
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 12:33 PM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I used SWMM 5 for a LOMR in Shaker Heights, Ohio (inner ring suburb of
Cleveland). Many decades ago, a stream which ran through the center of
the City had been enclosed in a large storm sewer. The original FIS was
completed after the storm sewer was constructed. The FIS for the
drainage way was performed by hand by adding flow through the sewer to
overland flow calculated by Manning's equation. The City had recently
hired another consulting firm to restudy the entire watershed in SWMM.
This study was then submitted to FEMA through the LOMR process and
accepted. As part of another project, my company then sized a parallel
sewer using the same SWMM model to lower the 100-year floodplain through
a redevelopment area. I don't know how difficult it was to get the first
SWMM based LOMR approved. The LOMR approval for our project was
relatively straightforward once the FEMA consultant found a reviewer who
had a SWMM background.

To address another issue raised, the original SWMM model (and
accordingly our parallel sewer model) included perhaps a dozen or more
storage nodes which represented above ground storage in street low
points. Due to the terrain, this storage was significant. In fact,
because of the uncertainty of FEMA's response, the other consultant
developed two models (one with and one without above ground storage).
Only the storage model was submitted to FEMA, but at one point we sized
our parallel sewer using both models. The storage model required a 48"
parallel sewer to achieve the desired results whereas the no-storage
model required an 84" system.

Mark R. Dennis, PE

ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
Akron, Ohio

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Mark Boucher
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 11:33 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I've never hear of SWMM being used for a FIS or LOMR. Has anyone done
this?

Mark Boucher

Brad-

I know that in the case of HEC-RAS, you do not have to (nor should you
necessarily want to) use an older version of the program. However, the
core hydraulic computations in HEC-RAS have changed very little, while
the various routines in SWMM have been tweaked more often.

Have you already tried to duplicate the SWMM results and run into
problems? If so, I would suggest trying to get some guidance from FEMA
or their review engineers at Baker, as they are the ones who will have
the final say in any FIS or FIRM revision requests.

(I'm assuming the original FEMA study was done using SWMM; if it was
done using HEC-RAS, you may have a more difficult time getting FEMA to
approve a different model.)

Regards,

Chris Hauser, P.E.
Toledo, Ohio

>>> Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM> 6/25/2008 8:44 AM >>>
Thanks Robert,

One question regarding the modified DW routing procedure. In submission
of FIS map modifications, one is require to provide a "duplicate
effective model" producing the same results as the original study. Does
this mean that you would necessarily have to use the specific version
(ie: 9, 11,...) for which the original study was developed?

-----Original Message-----
From: SWMM-USERS [mailto:SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca] On Behalf Of
Robert E Dickinson
Sent: Saturday, June 21, 2008 9:43 AM
To: SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
Subject: Re: [SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

Brad,

The SWMM 5 data input files are not backwards compatible with previous
versions of SWMM - you cannot open a file created in v13 with a v11 GUI
without getting messages about Options or features present in v13 but
not present in v11. Not everyone looks at the C code but the new
options are listed in the file enums.h with a version notation:

SKIP_STEADY_STATE, TEMPDIR, IGNORE_RAINFALL, //(5.0.010 - LR)
FORCE_MAIN_EQN, LINK_OFFSETS,
//(5.0.012 - LR)

The good feature about this message is that it tells you what MAY be
different between the two SWMM versions. For example, if you used Link
Offsets in v13 then you will not have a valid model in SWMM 5.0.011.
However, if you are not using a new option in SWMM 5.0.013 then you will
have a valid backwards compatible SWMM 5.0.011 input data set.

Best and Kind Regards,
Robert Edgar Dickinson
MWH Soft Inc.

Brad Vance <bva...@ECTINC.COM>
Sent by: SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>
06/18/2008 12:28 PM
Please respond to
SWMM-USERS <SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca>

To
SWMM-...@listserv.uoguelph.ca
cc

Subject
[SWMM-USERS] SWMM ver. 5.0.013

I was running a previous model from ver. 11 in ver. 13 and got
differing flow values at a number of nodes. When trying to re-open in
ver.
11, I got the following error message:

Error Report for File Z:\ENGINEERING
PROJECTS..................DP_South-West-SR80.inp
Unrecognized keyword (LINK_OFFSETS) at line 29:
[OPTION]
LINK_OFFSETS DEPTH

Are there any computational issues or otherwise with ver. 13?

Thanks

This email and files with it are confidential and are solely for the use
of the addressee. If you received this in error, please notify the
sender immediately by e-mail and delete this e-mail from your system.
E-mail messages and files cannot be guaranteed to be secure, error-free
or reproduce accurately on your system. The sender therefore does not
accept liability for errors or omissions.
Additional information regarding our policy on electronic documents is
available at WWW.JHENG.COM

NOTICE: This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are the property
of ARCADIS U.S., Inc. and its affiliates. All rights, including without
limitation copyright, are reserved. The proprietary information
contained in this e-mail message, and any files transmitted with it, is
intended for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If the reader of
this e-mail is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that
you have received this e-mail in error and that any review, distribution
or copying of this e-mail or any files transmitted with it is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the original message and any files
transmitted. The unauthorized use of this e-mail or any files
transmitted with it is prohibited and disclaimed by ARCADIS U.S., Inc.
and its affiliates.

------------------------------

End of SWMM-USERS Digest - 21 Jun 2008 to 25 Jun 2008 (#2008-114)
*****************************************************************

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages