Forced Pipe Size

If you want the CA to show the actual values, then you will need to provide a flow or velocity that results in the same size pipe.

--J

Do you mean that we add a cap (for future) at the end of the piece of over-sized pipe that is really not going to be there? We're using those on other parts of the system. can I place this cap on a non-plot layer while the others are on a plot layer?

Actually that's not working because it's forcing pipe that is located upstream of the pipe to accommodate for the ghost flow that will not exist. Any other suggestions?

Velocity then. Slow down the water until it snaps the pipe to the desired larger size.

--J

I just thought of something. Can I create a pipe category that has a lower maximum velocity and force that section of pipe to that category and this be over-sized by the software? What do you think? Then the calculations would be correct (not creating a ghost demand). If that works, that suggestion could put me on par with Jake. .. So that is probably not a good suggestion. Any other ideas?

Seaweed,
Go ahead and take a look at the link below on our webinar for Advanced Irrigation Troubleshooting. Specifically near the end (around the 53 min mark). We do cover the use of caps, in combination of Flow Zones. That may get you closer to what you are looking to achieve.

https://www.landfx.com/videos/webinars/item/3990-advanced-irrigation-troubleshooting.html

Jake,
As I noted in previous posts, I can use a cap which creates a ghost flow. But while using a ghost flow increases the pipe size it also will show that point as the critical analysis worst case? No. If not, then what good is having a cap for future connections if it doesn't accommodate for that future higher demand. - So while we're faking the system into over-sizing that piece of pipe, it is also running a critical analysis on something that will never be, and thus ignoring the real valves that are critical. Maybe this is more than what is intended on this board. If that's the case, feel free to call me to discuss when you have a moment or two.

We can agree though, that the information that the system is providing at the valve level is correct, right? So what you may have to do is do a little bit of manual adjusting at the Critical Analysis level after getting the mainline to show as you need by using Caps and Flow Zones. Run a valve schedule and determine the true critical station and adjust the Critical Analysis accordingly. That would be my only other suggestion to try and see if that works for you.

Yesserieee. We do agree that the calculations are accurate. This is a great suggestion. Would you suggest creating a custom block that puts this custom ghost-flow (cap for future that will never be) block entities on a separate non-plot layer.

That is a great response Jake. You never disappoint me. I thought that I would have to make a new block because the entities would not be created earlier zero. But it sounds like the block entities for the poke up earlier zero and will assume the properties of any layer that I put them on. This a great solution! Thank you!

You may have solved this already, but how about creating a new category of pipe, and set it's minimum size to the size you want? That way, no matter the flows (unless they exceed this minimum size), the pipe won't size any smaller, and the calcs should be correct. Or are there complexities that I'm missing?

Thanks Tom. That's what I considered three days ago (See above). I didn't try it, not did I get a response on this suggestion from LandFX.

I just thought of something. Can I create a pipe category that has a lower maximum velocity and force that section of pipe to that category and this be over-sized by the software? What do you think? Then the calculations would be correct (not creating a ghost demand). If that works, that suggestion could put me on par with Jake. .. So that is probably not a good suggestion. Any other ideas?

Great minds?

Did you try it? It seems to me that caps and block entities on frozen layers and adjusting pipe velocities, etc., is just too complicated. Set that minimum size, and if your system demand downstream of that section of pipe is too high, you'll know, because LandFX will up-size your already-over sized pipe. If not, you should be good to go. I can't imagine the critical analysis would otherwise ignore that section of over sized pipe. It knows it's in the system, and surely it accounts for its hydraulics when sizing everything.