Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

groganm

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About groganm

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi, I'd like to second Ruth's request. Is anyone aware of any updated or alternate sources for UK specific infiltration parameters for any of the methods available in TUFLOW? Thanks Michael
  2. Hi Phil, Thanks for that we will have to look into the various commands, but the TUFLOW_licence_settings.lcf looks promising. We are not getting any error or check messages, the TUFLOW log file just has this as the last line: Trying to open (A) file C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\log\_ All TUFLOW Simulations.log...OK. File Unit: 905. and then it terminates.
  3. After updating to TUFLOW 2020, we’ve been having issues with running our models because of the change in save location of the All TUFLOW Simulation.log, similarly to the issue outlined in this forum post. We run our models on remote machines, with several users running on the same machine from different logins. It appears that the first user to run a simulation in the latest TUFLOW 2020 version is the “creator” of the C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\log\_ All TUFLOW Simulations.log file and root folders and these become locked to that user, leading to the aforementioned issue for subsequent users. At the moment we have been using the Simulations Log Folder == command to set a location for the log file or prevent it being written but are looking for a long term solution. Is there any possibility to revert to the previous 2018 default or is there a way to prevent the folder from being locked by the first user?
  4. Thanks Phil, that's good to know. Michael
  5. Hi All, Just having some idle thoughts about 1D-2D linking and hoped to get other peoples views and ideas on them. I've come across several models now where 1D channels have been linked to TUFLOW in upland regions via a single HX link due to the size of the channel compared to the grid size. This is considered an acceptable method but it does have the drawback that the storage capacity above the channel banks is double counted, once in 1D and once in 2D. The method I've been thinking of to combat this is to use the 2D SRF polygons and buffer the HX lines to remove the capacity from the 2D domain. Have other people considered this or have I missed something here? I'm aware that sometimes this capacity can be considered negligible and that reducing the grid cell size could be used as well, but would welcome peoples thoughts on this methodology. Michael
  6. As a follow on to the topic the Q channels are viewed as open channels not pipes so it is not possible to have them connected to manholes. In the WinDes model the flow controls these are representing are directly downstream of manholes so I was having a few issues until I disabled these manholes. As a future release of TUFLOW will it be possible to connect Q channels to manholes? As the only solution I can think of, adding another very short C, R or I channel between the manhole and the Q channel, is a bit time consuming.
  7. Thanks Phil, that's brilliant. Regards, Michael
  8. Hi All, I'm attempting to convert a WinDes model to ESTRY. I've managed to get the pipe network and all the manholes in fine, however the model has a large number of tanks with Hydrobrakes on which I need to model. For the Hydrobrakes I was thinking of using M channels, and for the tanks I was going to use R channels with dimensions set to replicate the tank areas and levels. Is this the best way to model these assets? Or does anyone have any advice to help with modelling these? Any help welcome, thanks.
  9. Hi, You can adjust a FLC function in the HX links using the 'a' attribute of the 2d_bc file. I don't know which version it was introduced in but the quote below is from the Build 2011-09-AF release notes and gives some guidance. Would be good to perform some sensitivity tests on it to see how it affects model performance. "Assigning a FLC (typically 0.1 to 0.5 in value) to HX lines using the 2d_bc “a” attribute. For HX lines running along the river banks, especially those with high overtopping velocities, improved stability and representation of the energy lost as the water peels off from the river to floodplain or vica versa can be realised."
  10. Hi Dan, You can extend your wll lines beyond the 2D domain in the same way you would in the 2D domain. You would just need to digitise in the 1D nodes for the rest of your 1D channel, connect them with a 1D nwk layer and add in the wll lines. It is worth using the dist_add_points function in the wll lines to improve resolution in the 1D only area. Also the results can be quite blocky so they will probably need to be further post processed against a DTM covering the 1D are in vertical mapper or similar. Regards, Michael
  11. Hi Sam, For your first set up you should put a spill between the last River Section and the dummy HT boundary, the spill should be the same as the last River Section, SX lines don't like to be connected directly to River Sections. It would also be worth checking your initial conditions at that location. For the second problem you need to use an SX boundary not an HX. HX boundaries only work with River Sections while SX boundaries work with pretty much any other unit in ISIS as long as ISIS accepts the schematisation. Regards, Michael
  12. In the latest versions of TUFLOW you can alter the FLC value in the a field of the H links. In the release notes it states that values of 0.1 to 0.5 are recommended, what I would like to know are what is the default value used by TULFOW if you are running an old model which has a value of 0 in the a attribute and how were these values derived/ what magnitude of change is expected to happen when changing the values within this range? Many thanks Michael
  13. Hi I'm currently applying direct rainfall to an urban area whihc has lots of subway and incised road disappearing under various sections of the city, which means that there are lots very steep drops. Once the rainfall begins to be applied I suddenly get large depths of water (3-4m deep) at or near the location of these slopes this does not seem to affect model stability but does look very strange especially as there has only been 0.1-0.5mm of rainfall on the catchment when they start appearing. Is there a way to stop these depths appearing or stabilise the model at these locations as the depths remain throughout the model run. Attached is an image of the depth results for the save interval 3 minutes after the rain starts being applied, everything coloured in red is over 1m in depth. (The largest red area is a lake, so that one is fine ) Thanks for any help
×
×
  • Create New...