Hello Bob

I'm trying to convert to metric a WQ example file you posted in Feb 2009 (RUNOFF43_SW5.INP). The problem seems to be in the factor C1 of the EXP function used to describe the Wash-off process. I get a relatively close match (in the magnitudes & patterns) of the washed off constituents at the outfall, only

if I use ONE PERCENT of the metric conversion factor : [ 1 / (2.471 * 0.4536) = 1/1.121 = 0.892 ] which converts pounds per acre to kilograms per hectare.

Why this conversion factor of (~ 0.892 )* C1 for the EXP functions should be divided by 100 to approx. reproduce the original file (in the US customary units) results? Or perhaps I'm missing something obvious?

Thanks & Regards,

Mostafa

## Replies

Great many thanks for your reply, Bob.

The EXPO example equation itself is easily converted to the Metric by replacing C1=2.0 with C1= .907185 and keeping C2=1.4 intact, but this produces a wildy diverging results, far too off from the original. The main point here is that if the example equation is obtained from a curve fitting operation to a bunch of observed data then the same data would be described equally well by a simple metric conversion of the the base data itself or of the fitted equation. So perhaps SWMM5 is not trying to be quite Metric in here.

Apart from its being an interesting example (#43) for me as a novice in the WQ modelling, what I actually need is to believe that SWMM5 does work almost flawlessly in Metric when dealing with the pollution Accumulation & Wash-off in urban settings . Now could you possibly point me to a couple of old/recent applications of the SWMM5 (or v4) using the equations in Metric , in your convenience please. Many thanks all the same.

Mostafa

Hi Mostafa,

Maybe this will help you. SWMM 5 internally use the old English units or what we call American Units now.

// --- convert units of washoff coeff.

if ( func == EXPON_WASHOFF ) x[0] /= 3600.0;

if ( func == RATING_WASHOFF ) x[0] *= pow(UCF(FLOW), x[1]);

if ( func == EMC_WASHOFF ) x[0] *= LperFT3;