Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

dannyduong

Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dannyduong

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1377 profile views
  1. Hi guys, I'm getting the same error on Windows 8.1 64-bit (QGIS 2.82). Any ideas on how to get around it? Cheers, Danny EDIT: Alright worked it out that you'll need to download the Crayfish .dll and ffmpeg.exe from Lutra Consulting's website. Unzip these files and then copy it into the Crayfish plugins folder (created after you install through QGIS). This should be located at C:\Users\USERNAME\.qgis2\python\plugins\crayfish.
  2. Alright. I think I found the problem. The Contour Options work as expected using SMS 10.1, with the "Depth" range displayed appropriately. SMS 11.1 does not give the option as expected, so that's why I couldn't find the option to control the Depth range and was only given the choice to control the Water Level range.
  3. Hi Phil, Could you please do a screenshot of your "Contour Surface - Options"? Mine is shown below. This is despite selecting the depth grid as the "separate dataset for contours". Regards, Danny
  4. Hi Phil, With regards to the "Fill Below" option, it appears it's controlling the functional surface dataset (i.e. the water level) instead of the contours (the depth). Therefore, it seems to be setting the minimum water level as opposed to the minimum depth. I'll have a look at that Map Cutoff Depth option as well. Cheers, Danny
  5. Hi all, Do you have advice for presenting results for a Rainfall on Grid model within SMS? I've been using this procedure for the usual QT inflow hydrograph-only models, with pretty good results: http://wiki.tuflow.com/index.php?title=SMS_3D_Animation However, with Rainfall on Grid, there are wet cells everywhere, so the depth contouring shows water everywhere (see screenshot below). Ideally, there would be some way I can set the cut-off for the depth (d) layer to be higher than say 100-200 mm. However, the Functional Surface in use is the level (h) layer so I can't seem to set limits on the depth (d) Contour Surface. Cheers, Danny
  6. An update on this issue (in case someone else runs into the same thing): It has been confirmed with TUFLOW Support that there were issues with opening the particular set of results under version 11, whilst it opened up fine under version 10.1. The issue has now been raised with the Aquaveo team; hopefully we'll get a resolution in the near future. For the time being, I've requested access to both the 10.1 and 11 versions of SMS on my hardware dongle, so I can open the TUFLOW results.
  7. Hi Bill/Chin, Was this issue resolved? I seem to be having a similar issue, with non-matching elements, whilst trying to view *all.sup files using SMS 11.0.12 64-bit; the results were prepared using TUFLOW release 2012-05-AE-w64. Cheers, Danny
  8. Hi all, I noticed in the 2012-05-AE release that there was a new option (End After Maximum ==) for ending the simulation a certain amount of time after the last recorded maximum. A couple of questions for my own reference: What results are used to check for maximums? Is it the rate of increase/decrease of H and Q? What happens in the case of double peaks in the stage or discharge hydrographs? (See attached for example) I understand it's still under development so the options are limited for now, but there is definitely potential to minimise unnecessary processing time after the peak has arrived. Cheers, Danny
  9. Hi all, Is the "Copy All" -ca command meant to copy over source files used for generating xf files? I noticed that, for the .txt files that I used for the Read Grid ZPTs == command, some of the original .txt files were not copied over. The problem can be fixed by turning XF files off in the .tcf, but it would be nice if it was possible through the batch -ca command. Regards, Danny
  10. Hi Phillip, Thanks for the response. The model I'm working on is of a smaller extent (1/3 of the size smaller than the original larger model), as opposed to being of a finer cell-size resolution. However, I'm also planning on modifying the model to consider some design scenarios, so have expected the HT boundary to not remain exactly the same between different scenarios, for the same event. That's why the automatic HQ seemed more appropriate. With the above in mind, I think I'll continue on with the HQ boundary and carry out the sensitivity checks as suggested. Thanks again. Danny
  11. Hi Bill, I'm currently in the process of creating a smaller TUFLOW model from a larger existing one. For defining the downstream HQ boundary, I've queried the 1D _H.csv results from the existing larger model, at the area of interest, and have calculated the hydraulic slope at the peak flood levels. However, this slope is extremely low at around 0.4% (b = 0.0004); using the low slope causes the outflow Qo to "bounce" and eventually becomes unstable. Based on your post above, am I correct in saying that it's acceptable to arbitrarily set a steeper slope as long as the HQ boundary is sufficiently away from the study area, regardless of what the calculated hydraulic slope is in the previous model? Regards, Danny
  12. Hi guys, I can confirm that the file downloads correctly. Make sure you check that the "Downloads" folder is where you expect it to be as well. Cheers, Danny
  13. In the above situation, if the bridge/culvert had been modelled as a BW channel instead, would it possible to have the 1D bridge deck elevations reflected in the .2DM (i.e. the WLL shows the top of the bridge as opposed to the invert of the culvert)?
  14. dannyduong

    Read Grid Zpts

    Reference to a .TAB could possibly be problematic if you're going to be using the -C option to copy the TUFLOW models. The DEM .GRD may not be in the same folder as the .TAB, and won't be copied over for archival or client usage. Keeping the projection name in the .txt is probably good enough for what is required. I have started the Read GRID Zpts function today, and am impressed on the ease of adjusting the model domain.
  15. Hi guys, I've modelled a weir crest using a 1d_xs XZ table as a mid-section for a W channel; this crest level is constant across the full-width of the channel. Whenever I run the simulation, the following CHECK warning occurs, requiring a user prompt of YES or NO: XY: CHECK 1076 - 1 processed data levels determined for ..\model\mi\xs\Channel_Weir.csv. Limiting to 100. Min Z = 17.6 Max Z = 17.6 Z Increment = 0.02 ... Check if correct. Should this be happening? If so, can this prompt be turned off? Cheers, Danny
×
×
  • Create New...