Drainage Design
66 results found
-
Have an option for pipes to automatically connect soffit to soffit at MH's
Where you have different pipe sizes connecting at a MH good practice is for the connections to be made "Soffit to Soffit", it would be usefull if this could be done automatically and would remove the need to manually change each connection to take this into account.
1 vote -
Unable to Populate the Manhole & Cover Type In Infodrainage MH Scheudles
A fundemental part of producing MH Schedules is to include the MH type & Cover Grade, these boxes are shown within info-drainage MH schedule report but are unable to be populated. Please include
1 vote -
MADD factor
MADD factor.
InfoDrainage does not include this feature that exists in Microdrainage, that allows for storage not explicit in the hydraulic model.
As the successor product, ID should, as a minimum, include features and functionality that exists in the predecessor product, MD.1 vote -
Printing Critical Storm pipes Results in ascending order.
When presenting Critical Storm simulation calculations to the LLFA/Sewage undertaker, they must be in pipe code order, for example, 1-1.000-1-1.012. So from the top to the bottom of the network. One of your support staff informed me that when printing reports, the simulation results are printed in pipe creation order rather than ascending order. I need to be able to print in ascending order.
2 votes -
Identify foul and surface water with different colours
There should be an option in the display settings to change the colour of foul and surface water networks.
1 vote -
Backwards Compatibility
Options to save-back to earlier versions of the InfoDrainage software. I am currently trialling 2023.3 for my company, and users with 2023.2 are unable to open any models that I save.
1 vote -
Provide Inlet spread in FDOT Spreadsheet Reports
Please provide a inlet spread reports as specified in the FDOT Drainage Handbook.
2 votes -
Model a sag inlet with an allowable depth of ponding
I need to be able to model a sag inlet accurately within InfoDrainage. I would like to design these inlets so that there is an allowable ponding depth, and then any volume that exceeds that depth is applied to the surface as a 2D overland flow.
1 voteThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted. This is to confirm that we've received your suggestion and that it will be reviewed for future consideration.
-
Need Kirby-Kirpich Time of Concentration for Preliminary Sizing
The local requirement for Texas require the use of Kirby-Kirpich as the time of concentration method. Please add
1 voteThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted. This is to confirm that we've received your suggestion and that it will be reviewed for future consideration.
-
Clark Unit Hydrographs
Unit Hydrographs should follow HEC1 using Clark Unit Hydrograph for design
1 voteThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted. This is to confirm that we've received your suggestion and that it will be reviewed for future consideration.
-
HGL values in Profile - show in Elevation and uniformly across the profile - not just on structure
We need full HGL profile, using Elevation as a label in profile and consistently across the Flow Path.
5 votesThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who voted and commented. This is to confirm that we have received this suggestion and that this is now on our road map development in future releases of InfoDrainage.
-
Need Papadaskis-Kazen Time of Concentration for Preliminary Sizing
The local requirement for Arizona require the use of Papdaskis-Kazen as the time of concentration method. Please add.
3 votesThank you for submitting and voting for this idea. We've received it and it will be reviewed for future consideration.
-
Updating an Existing C3D Drainage Network When Importing Back
As a workflow we start our design in C3D then export for analysis in Infodrainage, We then bring back to C3D the amended network, but it is a new network, and so all the formatting that was initially done on it is lost.
C3D should update the network with the amended information from Infodrainage, including HGL, pit rotation etc.3 votesThank you for submitting and voting for this idea. This is to confirm that we've received the idea and it will be reviewed by the Product Management and development team for future consideration.
-
SuDS and Inlet Level sync stepdowns
Infodrainage 2023.2
Inlets into SuDS features need to be able to be different from the SuDS features bed level.
It is almost always necessary to have a step down between inlets and outlets on Ponds and Swales etc.2 votesThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted.
The inlet pipe will always try to sync to the bed level of your Storm Water Control (SWC), however, you can easily lock the pipe and manipulate the level so your inlet pipe can be higher and your outlet pipe can be lower. You can introduce inlet and outlet chambers and you will have full flexibility in dropping the levels as required.
Does the above address the issue?
-
Better Level Coordination of Swales
InfoDrainage 2023.2
If you have a swale with several branches discharging into it the invert level of those branches is fixed at the swales outlet invert level and not at the bed level corresponding to its position along the swale.2 votesThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted.
We agree that in scenarios where multiple pipes are discharging into a steep swale at various points, the bed level might not be the best level to sync to. This has been discussed and it's been agreed that we will interpolate the right level using the centre line and sync the connection to it. This is now in the road map for future implementation.
-
Automatic M5-60 and R values based on Location
Most models are built on surveys that are on National Grid Coordinates. It would therefore be good for the rainfall data to automatically generate M5-60 and R values based on NGC for the site with the option to click Map and reposition if necessary.
2 votesThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted.
FSR is an outdated rainfall method which was developed in the 1970s, this is why various LLFAs around the UK are now rejecting drainage statements submissions when FSR was used as a rainfall. This is one of the reasons why we would be hesitant to invest into investing more time into this. We are currently working on FEH22 implementation which will be made available to UK customers in future releases of the software.
However, FSR has a 1km2 resolution, therefore, you can still get the exact site accuratley by hoovering over the map and keeping an eye on the coordinates on the top-left corner (see screenshot). Take one coordinate from your site and use the first three digits from the easting and the first three digits from the northing to establish the exact location on the FSR…
-
InfoDrainage 2023.3 Quick Storage Estimate Print Outs
Please can a function to print out the quick storage estimates and results summary be made available. Whilst they should only be used for concept designs, it would be useful to have this information for record to show the design process
1 voteThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted. This is to confirm that we've received your suggestion and that it will be reviewed for future consideration.
-
Sum of contributing areas in design tables
Add a column to the "Junctions" design table when Inflow/Catchment Areas are selected that shows a running total of contributing area to aide pipe sizing
2 votesThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted. This is to confirm that we've received your suggestion and that it will be reviewed for future consideration.
-
Results format
Why does InfoDrainage deafult to showing you the Stormwater Controls summary, and only the Stormwater Controls summary, when a model finishes running?
This occurs even if the Stormwater Controls are fine but the Junctions are showing flooding.
I mean, I know you can manually check all the other results summaries, but why doesn't InfoDrainage either open them all or choose the most critical one?
2 votesThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted. This is to confirm that we've received and reviewed your suggestion and here is our response:
We believe that stormwater controls are the most critical element of the drainage design. Hence we show the results of SWCs as soon as the simulation is finalised.
Users can/should check the rest of the model to ensure that there aren't any bottlenecks in the system.
It might be feasible to implement a dropdown menu within the SWC results so we can still show results from SWCs, but we make it easier for users to jump to different screens and check the inflows, connections and junctions.
Would the above address what is required for this case?
-
Realistic ground profile for swales
This is a flaw that's been going since MicroDrainage, but when you change the type of a connection from a pipe to an open channel, like a swale, there's no information at all provided about the actual size of that feature.
I had one come in the other day, only attenuation on the whole site was in a swale. Parameters for the swale has been set 0.5m base width, 1:3 side slopes, Mannings n 0.03, everything normal and okay with this, right?
But the manholes at the top and bottom of the link that had been turned into the swale…
2 votesThank you for the suggestion and thanks to those who commented and voted.
If you try to build your swales using the SWCs rather than converting links to swales, you will see that you can start from the top area and go down (1:3) or you can start from the bottom and go up (1:3).
Does the above address your suggestion? I'd be interested to hear your thoughts once you try it.
