MODELING MULTIPLE CONTROL GATE IN A TRANSECT

I am modeling a natural channel with gated spillway. There are two gates as shown in the following figure.

I want to use two different time series for the two gates. How do I model the two gates in SWMM and use time series control rules simultaneously? If I use two different orifice for two gates then wont they superpose on one another? I want to model them to act parallel as shown in the figure and add two different time series for the two gates.

Please help.

Kindest regards,

Shams

E-mail me when people leave their comments –

You need to be a member of SWMM 5 or SWMM or EPASWMM and SWMM5 in ICM_SWMM to add comments!

Join SWMM 5 or SWMM or EPASWMM and SWMM5 in ICM_SWMM

Comments

  • Thank you Mr. Dickinson. Yes  you are right as always and thank you for your guidance once again.

  • They should work in parallel - if I am interpreting your drawing correctly then with two different time series, you will have two different openings and two different possible flows in the orifices.  The total flow between the two junctions will be the total of the two orifices.  I hope I have this right from your drawing.

  • Thank you Mr. Dickinson. But if I connect two orifices between two same junctions and give two different time series for them will they act as parallel structures? For instant,

    at a certain time step,

    gate 1 is operating with 2 ft and

    gate 2 is operating with 1 ft  opening height.

    How will SWMM interprete them? will they act parallel as in this image?

    3293152187?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024or they will be superposed as in this image. This will not match the actual condition.

    3293154957?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024

    Thanking you in anticipation.

    Shams

  • Hi, Here is an example with two orifices connected to two different time series

    IF SIMULATION TIME > 0
    THEN PUMP SWWPS-SP-Primary SETTING = TIMESERIES Southport

    RULE 2nd

    IF SIMULATION TIME > 0
    THEN ORIFICE 210107_210107G SETTING = TIMESERIES 90inSWDGate

This reply was deleted.