Pulgarin et al 2021a - Revision history

Jcruge: Jcruge moved page Pulgarin et al 2020a to Pulgarin et al 2021a

2021-01-27T12:22:53Z

Jcruge moved page Pulgarin et al 2020a to Pulgarin et al 2021a

Jcruge: Jcruge moved page Pulgarin et al 2019a to Pulgarin et al 2020a

2021-01-14T15:44:51Z

Jcruge moved page Pulgarin et al 2019a to Pulgarin et al 2020a

Rimni: /* References */

2020-09-07T12:52:23Z

‎References

Rimni at 12:39, 7 September 2020

2020-09-07T12:39:08Z

Rimni at 12:37, 7 September 2020

2020-09-07T12:37:31Z

Rimni: /* 3.3 Comparison of the hydraulic behavior of the CSO in SWMM and ANSYS CFX. */

2020-09-07T12:34:46Z

‎3.3 Comparison of the hydraulic behavior of the CSO in SWMM and ANSYS CFX.

Rimni at 12:34, 7 September 2020

2020-09-07T12:34:22Z

Rimni: /* 3.3 Comparison of the hydraulic behavior of the CSO in SWMM and ANSYS CFX. */

2020-09-07T12:30:41Z

‎3.3 Comparison of the hydraulic behavior of the CSO in SWMM and ANSYS CFX.

Rimni at 13:04, 4 September 2020

2020-09-04T13:04:58Z

Rimni at 12:44, 4 September 2020

2020-09-04T12:44:41Z

@@ Line 409: / Line 409: @@
 ==References==
-[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ''Combined Sewer Overflows Guidance For Monitoring And Modeling''. Washington, 1999.
+[1] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Combined sewer overflows guidance for monitoring and modeling. Washington, 1999.
-[2] CDRPC, C. D. R. P. C. ''Combined Sewer System Modeling Work Plan''. New York, 2007.
+[2] Capital District Regional Planning Commission (CDRPC). Combined sewer system modeling work plan. New York, 2007.
-[3] Rossman, L. A. ''Storm water management model user’s manual, version 5.0''. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 2010.
+[3] Rossman L.A. Storm water management model user’s manual, version 5.0. National Risk Management Research Laboratory, 2010.
-[4] Harwood, R., & Saul, A. J. Modelling the Performance of Combined‐Sewer Overflow Chambers. ''Water and Environment Journal'', ''15''(4), 300–304, 2001.
+[4] Harwood R.,  Saul A.J. Modelling the performance of combined‐sewer overflow chambers. Water and Environment Journal, 15(4):300–304, 2001.
-[5] Vazquez, J., Kouyi, G. L., & Zug, M. Modelling and instrumentation of the storm overflows of the combined sewer system of Sélestat. ''Urban Water Journal'', ''3''(2), 91–110, 2006.
+[5] Vazquez J., Kouyi G.L.,  Zug M. Modelling and instrumentation of the storm overflows of the combined sewer system of Sélestat. Urban Water Journal, 3(2):91–110, 2006.
-[6] He, C., Marsalek, J., Rochfort, Q., & Krishnappan, B. G. Case study: refinement of hydraulic operation of a complex CSO storage/treatment facility by numerical and physical modeling. ''Journal of Hydraulic Engineering'', ''132''(2), 131–139, 2006.
+[6] He C., Marsalek J., Rochfort Q.,  Krishnappan B.G. Case study: refinement of hydraulic operation of a complex CSO storage/treatment facility by numerical and physical modeling. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 132(2):131–139, 2006.
-[7] He, C., & Marsalek, J. Hydraulic optimization of a combined sewer overflow (CSO) storage facility using numerical and physical modeling. ''Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering'', ''36''(2), 363–373, 2009.
+[7] He C.,  Marsalek J. Hydraulic optimization of a combined sewer overflow (CSO) storage facility using numerical and physical modeling. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 36(2):363–373, 2009.
-[8] Fach, S., Sitzenfrei, R., & Rauch, W. Determining the spill flow discharge of combined sewer overflows using rating curves based on computational fluid dynamics instead of the standard weir equation. ''Water Science and Technology'', ''60''(12), 3035–3043, 2009.
+[8] Fach S., Sitzenfrei R., Rauch W. Determining the spill flow discharge of combined sewer overflows using rating curves based on computational fluid dynamics instead of the standard weir equation. Water Science and Technology, 60(12):3035–3043, 2009.
-[9] Dufresne, M., Vazquez, J., Terfous, A., Ghenaim, A., & Poulet, J.-B. CFD modeling of solid separation in three combined sewer overflow chambers. ''Journal of Environmental Engineering'', ''135''(9), 776–787, 2009.
+[9] Dufresne M., Vazquez J., Terfous A., Ghenaim A., Poulet J.-B. CFD modeling of solid separation in three combined sewer overflow chambers. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 135(9):776–787, 2009.
-[10] Isel, S., Dufresne, M., Bardiaux, J. B., Fischer, M., & Vazquez, J. Computational fluid dynamics based assessment of discharge-water depth relationships for combined sewer overflows. ''Urban Water Journal'', ''11''(8), 631–640, 2014.
+[10] Isel S., Dufresne M., Bardiaux J.B., Fischer M., Vazquez J. Computational fluid dynamics based assessment of discharge-water depth relationships for combined sewer overflows. Urban Water Journal, 11(8):631–640, 2014.
-[11] Chen, Z., Han, S., Zhou, F.-Y., & Wang, K. A CFD modeling approach for municipal sewer system design optimization to minimize emissions into receiving water body. ''Water Resources Management'', ''27''(7), 2053–2069, 2013.
+[11] Chen Z., Han S., Zhou F.-Y.,  Wang K. A CFD modeling approach for municipal sewer system design optimization to minimize emissions into receiving water body. Water Resources Management, 27(7):2053–2069, 2013.
-[12] Harwood, R. CSO modeling strategies using computational fluid dynamics. In ''Global Solutions for Urban Drainage'' (pp. 1–9), 2002.
+[12] Harwood R. CSO modeling strategies using computational fluid dynamics. In Global Solutions for Urban Drainage, pp. 1–9, 2002.
-[13] GRUCON. ''Estudio de la Rehabilitación del Alcantarillado de la Ciudad de Bogotá, 1999.''
+[13] GRUCON. Estudio de la rehabilitación del alcantarillado de la ciudad de Bogotá, 1999.
-[14] Stovin, V. R., & Saul, A. J. Computational fluid dynamics and the design of sewage storage chambers. ''Water and Environment Journal'', ''14''(2), 103–110, 2000.
+[14] Stovin V.R.,  Saul A.J. Computational fluid dynamics and the design of sewage storage chambers. Water and Environment Journal, 14(2):103–110, 2000.
-[15] Dufresne, M., Vazquez, J., Terfous, A., Ghenaim, A., & Poulet, J.-B. Experimental investigation and CFD modelling of flow, sedimentation, and solids separation in a combined sewer detention tank. ''Computers & Fluids'', ''38''(5), 1042–1049, 2009.
+[15] Dufresne M., Vazquez J., Terfous A., Ghenaim A., Poulet J.-B. Experimental investigation and CFD modelling of flow, sedimentation, and solids separation in a combined sewer detention tank. Computers & Fluids, 38(5):1042–1049, 2009.
-[16] Cataño-Lopera, Y. A., Bedoya, D., & Anderson, N. Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Modeling to Improve Flow Partition in a Combined Sewer Diversion Structure under Supercritical Flow. ''Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation'', ''2017''(2), 642–654, 2017.
+[16] Cataño-Lopera Y.A., Bedoya D., Anderson N. Using computational fluid dynamics modeling to improve flow partition in a combined sewer diversion structure under supercritical flow. Proceedings of the Water Environment Federation, 2017(2):642–654, 2017.
-[17] Kouyi, G. L., Bret, P., Didier, J.-M., Chocat, B., & Billat, C. The use of CFD modelling to optimise measurement of overflow rates in a downstream-controlled dual-overflow structure. ''Water Science and Technology'', ''64''(2), 521–527, 2011.
+[17] Kouyi G.L., Bret P., Didier J.-M., Chocat B., Billat C. The use of CFD modelling to optimise measurement of overflow rates in a downstream-controlled dual-overflow structure. Water Science and Technology, 64(2):521–527, 2011.

@@ Line 362: / Line 362: @@
 {| style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: 1em auto; width: auto;max-width: auto;"
 |-
-|style="padding:10px;"|[[File:Review_389508123835_7593_3.10-1.png]]
+|style="padding:10px;"|[[File:Review_389508123835_5014_3.9-1.png]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 | colspan="1" style="padding:10px;"| '''Figure 11'''. Comparison of flow input vs overflow outlet curves of ANSYS-SWMM models for the Carrera 8<sup>th</sup> CSO

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:37, 7 September 2020
Line 358:		Line 358:

	In [[#img-11\|Figure 11]], the comparison of the results between the models used is shown. In SWMM the relationship between the input flow and the overflow is linear from the threshold flow, while in ANSYS CFX there are two changes in the slope of the function. The first is reflected at the beginning of the CSO operation, where due to a minimal variation in the inflow, there is a significant variation in the overflow (greater slope). The second change occurs when the flow begins to pour completely along the crest of the CSO (lower slope), showing a behavior similar to the results of the SWMM model.		In [[#img-11\|Figure 11]], the comparison of the results between the models used is shown. In SWMM the relationship between the input flow and the overflow is linear from the threshold flow, while in ANSYS CFX there are two changes in the slope of the function. The first is reflected at the beginning of the CSO operation, where due to a minimal variation in the inflow, there is a significant variation in the overflow (greater slope). The second change occurs when the flow begins to pour completely along the crest of the CSO (lower slope), showing a behavior similar to the results of the SWMM model.
		+
		+	<div id='img-11'></div>
		+	{\| style="text-align: center; border: 1px solid #BBB; margin: 1em auto; width: auto;max-width: auto;"
		+	\|-
		+	\|style="padding:10px;"\|[[File:Review_389508123835_7593_3.10-1.png]]
		+	\|- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
		+	\| colspan="1" style="padding:10px;"\| '''Figure 11'''. Comparison of flow input vs overflow outlet curves of ANSYS-SWMM models for the Carrera 8<sup>th</sup> CSO
		+	\|}
		+

	Although the trends between the models have similarities in both CSOs, the SWMM model underestimates the threshold flow, estimating a difference of about 100 l/s, with respect to the ANSYS CFX results.		Although the trends between the models have similarities in both CSOs, the SWMM model underestimates the threshold flow, estimating a difference of about 100 l/s, with respect to the ANSYS CFX results.

@@ Line 374: / Line 374: @@
 |style="padding:10px;"| [[File:Review_389508123835_7593_3.10-1.png]]
 |- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
-| colspan="1" style="padding-bottom:10px;"| '''Figure 12'''. Comparison of flow input vs overflow outlet curves of ANSYS-SWMM models for the Carrera 9<sup>th</sup> CSO
+| colspan="1" style="padding:10px;"| '''Figure 12'''. Comparison of flow input vs overflow outlet curves of ANSYS-SWMM models for the Carrera 9<sup>th</sup> CSO
 |}

@@ Line 356: / Line 356: @@
 From the results obtained in the aforementioned models, the curves that relate the inlet flow to the overflow for the outlet pipe-type CSO in the CSO studied are constructed.
 In [[#img-11|Figure 11]], the comparison of the results between the models used is shown. In SWMM the relationship between the input flow and the overflow is linear from the threshold flow, while in ANSYS CFX there are two changes in the slope of the function. The first is reflected at the beginning of the CSO operation, where due to a minimal variation in the inflow, there is a significant variation in the overflow (greater slope). The second change occurs when the flow begins to pour completely along the crest of the CSO (lower slope), showing a behavior similar to the results of the SWMM model.
 Although the trends between the models have similarities in both CSOs, the SWMM model underestimates the threshold flow, estimating a difference of about 100 l/s, with respect to the ANSYS CFX results.
-In the case of the CSO on Carrera 9, the relation between the flow inlet and the overflow pipe is defined by a nonlinear function at the beginning of its operation, as shown in Figure 3-10. Unlike the sudden growth of the function when the CSO on the Carrera 8 comes into operation. The CSO on Carrera 9 presents a gradual growth, which supports the hydraulic interdependence to the following considerations:
+In the case of the CSO on Carrera 9, the relation between the flow inlet and the overflow pipe is defined by a nonlinear function at the beginning of its operation, as shown in [[#img-12|Figure 12]]. Unlike the sudden growth of the function when the CSO on the Carrera 8 comes into operation. The CSO on Carrera 9 presents a gradual growth, which supports the hydraulic interdependence to the following considerations:
 :1. The SWMM model does not contemplate the temporary volume stored in the chamber upstream of the CSO, before it becomes operational.
@@ Line 385: / Line 368: @@
 :3. The local hydraulic phenomena that occurs in the CSO (backwaters, hydraulic jumps, backflows, among others) are not simulated for the CSO in SWMM.
 ===3.4 Methodological proposal for the calibration of combined sewers.===

← Older revision	Revision as of 12:22, 27 January 2021
(No difference)

← Older revision	Revision as of 15:44, 14 January 2021
(No difference)

@@ Line 357: / Line 357: @@
 From the results obtained in the aforementioned models, the curves that relate the inlet flow to the overflow for the outlet pipe-type CSO in the CSO studied are constructed.
-{| style="width: 48%;"
+<div id='img-11'></div>
 |-
-|  style="vertical-align: top;width: 100%;"|
+|style="padding:10px;"| [[File:Review_389508123835_5014_3.9-1.png]]
-[[File:Review_389508123835_5014_3.9-1.png]]
+|- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
+| colspan="1" style="padding-bottom:10px;"| '''Figure 11'''. Comparison of flow input vs overflow outlet curves of ANSYS-SWMM models for the Carrera 8<sup>th</sup> CSO
 |}
-In Figure 11, the comparison of the results between the models used is shown. In SWMM the relationship between the input flow and the overflow is linear from the threshold flow, while in ANSYS CFX there are two changes in the slope of the function. The first is reflected at the beginning of the CSO operation, where due to a minimal variation in the inflow, there is a significant variation in the overflow (greater slope). The second change occurs when the flow begins to pour completely along the crest of the CSO (lower slope), showing a behavior similar to the results of the SWMM model.
+In [[#img-11|Figure 11]], the comparison of the results between the models used is shown. In SWMM the relationship between the input flow and the overflow is linear from the threshold flow, while in ANSYS CFX there are two changes in the slope of the function. The first is reflected at the beginning of the CSO operation, where due to a minimal variation in the inflow, there is a significant variation in the overflow (greater slope). The second change occurs when the flow begins to pour completely along the crest of the CSO (lower slope), showing a behavior similar to the results of the SWMM model.
 {| style="width: 48%;"

@@ Line 332: / Line 332: @@
 Although a significant variation in the number of Courant is obtained (between 0.20 and 2.1E11), a mesh size of 193744 and a step time of 30 seconds are chosen, the flow rate is identified with magnitude close to the threshold that is obtained for the simulation results in the SWMM model.
-Once the simulation parameters have been obtained, the analysis of the hydraulic behavior in the structure is carried out; the water that passes over the crest of the CSO does not reach to wet all its length, therefore, the CSO works partially, as shown in Figure 9.
+Once the simulation parameters have been obtained, the analysis of the hydraulic behavior in the structure is carried out; the water that passes over the crest of the CSO does not reach to wet all its length, therefore, the CSO works partially, as shown in [[#img-9|Figure 9]].
-{| style="width: 48%;"
+<div id='img-9'></div>
 |-
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;width: 100%;"|
+|style="padding:10px;"|  [[File:Review_389508123835_2452_3.7-1.png|600px]]
-[[File:Review_389508123835_2452_3.7-1.png]]
+|- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 |}
-Similarly, Figure 10 shows the structure functioning when the flow is poured along the entire crest of the CSO. In this case, the hydraulic head on the CSO crest increases gradually and not suddenly, as in the SWMM model.
+Similarly, [[#img-10|Figure 10]] shows the structure functioning when the flow is poured along the entire crest of the CSO. In this case, the hydraulic head on the CSO crest increases gradually and not suddenly, as in the SWMM model.
-{| style="width: 48%;"
+<div id='img-9'></div>
 |-
-|  style="text-align: center;vertical-align: top;width: 100%;"|
+|style="padding:10px;"|  [[File:Review_389508123835_5622_3.8-1.png|600px]]
-[[File:Review_389508123835_5622_3.8-1.png]]
+|- style="text-align: center; font-size: 75%;"
 |}
 ===3.3 Comparison of the hydraulic behavior of the CSO in SWMM and ANSYS CFX.===

@@ Line 248: / Line 248: @@
 !  Mesh size !! Source
 |-
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|31488
+|  style="text-align: center;"|31488
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|[14]
+|  style="text-align: center;"|[14]
 |-
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|60000
+|  style="text-align: center;"|60000
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|[5]
+|  style="text-align: center;"|[5]
 |-
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|61875
+|  style="text-align: center;"|61875
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|[6]
+|  style="text-align: center;"|[6]
 |-
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|60000 - 100000
+|  style="text-align: center;"|60000 - 100000
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|[15]
+|  style="text-align: center;"|[15]
 |-
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|346000
+|  style="text-align: center;"|346000
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|[16]
+|  style="text-align: center;"|[16]
 |-
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|320000
+|  style="text-align: center;"|320000
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|[11]
+|  style="text-align: center;"|[11]
 |-
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|425000
+|  style="text-align: center;"|425000
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|[10]
+|  style="text-align: center;"|[10]
 |-
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|390000
+|  style="text-align: center;"|390000
-|  style="border: 1pt solid black;text-align: center;"|[17]
+|  style="text-align: center;"|[17]
 |}
@@ Line 285: / Line 285: @@
 |  style="text-align: center;"|Min
 |  style="text-align: center;"|Max
-|  style="text-align: center;"|yes
+|  style="text-align: center;"|Yes
 |  style="text-align: center;"|No
 |-