Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

mostlyatnight

Members
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About mostlyatnight

  • Rank
    Member
  1. We are very excited to announce the release of Crayfish 1.1.1 which now supports TUFLOW FV results, projection-on-the-fly, long-section profiles and transparency. Also many previous issues fixed. See here for full details of this release. Installation instructions can be found on the main project page.
  2. Lutra Consulting are very happy to announce the first stable release of the Crayfish Plugin for QGIS. Crayfish allows hydraulic modelling results from packages like TUFLOW to be viewed natively in QGIS without having to first convert them to intermediate GIS formats. The tool supports both contour and vector datasets and allows users to quickly flick between output steps to gain a full appreciation of the hydraulic mechanisms at work within their model. Please see the project page on our website for full details of how to install and use.
  3. Lutra Consulting are delighted to announce new dates for Quantum GIS (QGIS), GRASS and PostGIS training courses in partnership with Halcrow in London, UK. Please see below for more details as well as here for the Halcrow news item. Quantum GIS Date: 12th September Full course description: http://www.lutraconsulting.co.uk/training/qgis Whether you're a seasoned GIS user or new to GIS, this course will allow you to quickly get to grips with Quantum GIS for both simple and more complex tasks. After an introduction to the concept and basics of GIS, data types and coordinate reference systems, participants will learn how to view, interrogate, edit and present data through a series of practical tutorials. The course is structured around Ordnance Survey's OpenData mapping initiative and data from HM Government's data.gov.uk website and covers a variety of common file formats. Advanced Quantum GIS and GRASS Date: 13th September Full course description: http://www.lutraconsulting.co.uk/training/advancedqgis Aimed at users already familiar with the basics of Quantum GIS (QGIS), this course introduces participants to geodatabases, vector processing and raster processing, allowing QGIS to be used as a tool for advanced GIS analyses. Participants are introduced to the PostGIS geodatabase which allows datasets, whether small or large, to be efficiently accessed and centrally managed. Quantum GIS and GRASS GIS will be used to produce derived datasets such as heat maps through a series of practical examples. Our training course schedule page can be found here. Contact Alastair Sheppard at technicaltraining@halcrow.com or on 0845 094 7990 for more details and to reserve your place.
  4. Lutra Consulting and Halcrow have launched a joint training course designed specifically for TUFLOW modellers interested in using QGIS for building models and viewing results. The course is scheduled for the 26th April 2012 in Hammersmith, London. A course outline can be found here. Contact Alastair Sheppard at technicaltraining@halcrow.com or on 0845 094 7990 for more details and to reserve your place.
  5. Hi Fiona, Could you attach any images showing the location and the schematisation you've used? Alternatively, could you specify the lat/lon of the location you're having issues and I might be able to provide an alternative schematisation method. Regards, Pete
  6. Hi DanP, If you're still having problems, feel free to send the .TGC file, isis nodes layer, isis .dat file and 1d-2d link layer through to isis@halcrow.com and I'll take a look into it for you. Regards, Pete @ ISIS Support
  7. Hi there, I have seen similar things when making a 2D only model of a natural harbour. If the tide is moving into an area where the geometry gets narrower, then I'd expect the peak level to possibly be higher than the peak boundary level. In the model we had, the tide passed through a narrow throat and then into a natural harbour where the geometry was getting progressively wider and wider. When we plotted a long section of peak stage, you could see that the peak level got progressively higher as it got closer to the beach (further into the harbour). We never got to the bottom of this issue as we instead moved towards using a triangular mesh (finite volume method) which seemed to solve the problem. What do the results look like around your HT boundary? Do they look sensible? Regards, M
  8. Hi DanP, I can confirm that this is not a problem with your schematisation - I am also having the same problem with one of the models I have been working with recently. I have raised this previously with WBM but have not got any feedback. M
  9. Hi Guy D, Thanks for your reply and sorry for not saying so sooner - I tried the double precision version and the total volume plot now behaves how you'd expect it to. The increase in mass seems to be a pretty much constant ammount at every time step so decreasing the TS makes it far more noticable. Thanks again for everyone's help. M
  10. Hello all, I am attempting to use TUFLOW to route a breach hydrograph of a small dam. The model is very simple: 20m Grid Global roughness ST inflows (flow divided among 14 cells) No outflow from domain In order to get a sensible looking plot just DS of the breach, I require a sub 1s time step. The model seems to behave itself near the breach - however, after all inflow has stopped, the total volume in the domain keeps creeping up. When the model is run for 10Hrs to see the destruction caused downstream - a mass balance error of +118% of the inflow volume is seen. When the total volume in the domain is plotted, the volume continues to increase linearly with time after the inflow hydrograph has finished. If I decrease my timestep, the line gets steeper (the problem is much more pronounced) If I increase the timestep - the line gets very shallow. As the problem here is occurring past the point where the complex breach flow is occurring - I am assuming that if I run a "normal" flood model with a small 2D timestep, then I will also see the same artificial increase in mass. Any suggestions of how to get rid of this discrepancy would be much appreciated as it has not yet been possible to produce a sensible result with either the 2008 or 2007 release of TUFLOW.
  11. I was interested to know what generally accepted methods are currently used to represent individual buildings in a 2D domain. I have seen various SFRA models using a Manning's n value of 1.0 for buildings and remember hearing discussions at the last TUFLOW meet in Bristol about setting the ZPoints of the building to the finished floor level and using a similarly high roughness coefficient. Does anyone else have any different experiences?
×
×
  • Create New...