Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

tmashby

Members
  • Content Count

    46
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About tmashby

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  1. We're having some issues getting a model to start up with reporting locations included. The model is FMP-TUFLOW, and the Recording Locations layer has been set up as described in the manual, but when running we get this error: NoXY: ERROR 0505 - Processing Reporting Location Lines. Check "Read GIS Reporting Locations" is not in a 1D block or in .ecf file. http://wiki.tuflow.com/index.php?title=TUFLOW_Message_0505 Unfortunately the wiki doesn't have any further detail and I can't find any further reference to 1D block anywhere. The command Read GIS Reporting Locations is being read from the tcf file, in the same place as in another example we have where it works. I'm currently testing it with just one line in the 2d_rl layer, which spans the floodplain and is snapped to the FMP node layer at a central vertex of the line. Any suggestions would be welcome.
  2. Using your third method you should be able to remove the black border. Convert the grid into regions, double click the region layer in the Mapinfo layer control and change the style as you would with any polygon.
  3. Lucy, As far as I recall, they are a visual representation of the automatic connection made between your pits and the surface. They are showing that the connections are working correctly. I am prepared to be corrected as I haven't built a 1D pipe network for a while. Cheers Tom
  4. Is there any further info available about running Tuflow on a GPU? We've had a recent hardware upgrade and it would be useful to know what the possibilities are. I've not been able to find very much information from the recent past on the subject at all.
  5. To make the repeated posts even more redundant, after a brief discussion with my esteemed colleague Pete Harrison, we've concluded that it is an issue with the newer versions of Tuflow_to_gis.exe. I've performed the same operation with the 2008 version and the results look as they should. I had tried a slightly older version than the most recent and that also has the same problem.
  6. I've created a simple tidal model to look at the velocity field in a bay. The dat file velocity results look fine when viewed in SMS or similar, however when exporting the maximum results (either straight from the _v.dat with tuflow_to_gis or by using dat_to_dat to extract the max values first) they come out with some strange features. I've attached a screenshot showing what I mean, with a profile through the results included. I've checked exhaustively and the actual results are fine and are as expected. The dips in velocity are not present in the .dat results file. Has anyone seen anything similar or got any thoughts? Cheers Tom
  7. I've created a simple tidal model to look at the velocity field in a bay. The dat file velocity results look fine when viewed in SMS or similar, however when exporting the maximum results (either straight from the _v.dat with tuflow_to_gis or by using dat_to_dat to extract the max values first) they come out with some strange features. I've attached a screenshot showing what I mean, with a profile through the results included. I've checked exhaustively and the actual results are fine and are as expected. The dips in velocity are not present in the .dat results file. Has anyone seen anything similar or got any thoughts? Cheers Tom
  8. I've created a simple tidal model to look at the velocity field in a bay. The dat file velocity results look fine when viewed in SMS or similar, however when exporting the maximum results (either straight from the _v.dat with tuflow_to_gis or by using dat_to_dat to extract the max values first) they come out with some strange features. I've attached a screenshot showing what I mean, with a profile through the results included. I've checked exhaustively and the actual results are fine and are as expected. The dips in velocity are not present in the .dat results file. Has anyone seen anything similar or got any thoughts? Cheers Tom
  9. tmashby

    Q Type Pits

    As far as I know Tuflow doesn't output anything directly as far as depth vs flow results, but you should be able to set a point to output a timeseries in a cell (i.e. where you have a pit) and then relate this to the 1D _Q.csv results for that pit to see if it is behaving as it should. You may find that the pipe connecting the pits together is flowing at capacity, so only a little flow will enter. Maybe do some handcalcs (or use Colebrook-White tables) to check the flow in the pipe that you have connecting the pits. Might need to make the pipe bigger for the pits to work as you want them to.
  10. tmashby

    Q Type Pits

    The SX lines will be connecting directly to the pipe, so the Q pit won't have any influence, but should take flow from the cell where they are located into the pipe. The SX line will take flow from the cells that it is in, and that will enter the pipe. As you have found, a pit channel will only connect at the cell in which it is located unless you use the SXS or SXG commands, which don't let you control which cells are chosen. One solution to this is to use multiple pits. Put a pit node in each of the cells where your drains are, and connect these with a pipe to where you have the pit at the moment. That should act as if you have a continuous drain.
  11. You could try interpolating a grid in Vertical Mapper from the 2m Tuflow grid - use tuflow_to_gis and the .2dm file. That would give you a more similar grid on which to use point inspection. Alternatively you could assign node levels to headwall and pipe from the grid and make an assumption as to the distance from headwall level to pipe invert and subtract that value from the pipe invert value.
  12. if the area isn't of too much importance and the bridges are very close together then I would consider modelling them as one bridge unit, with either the most upstream or most constrictive bridge in the Isis model.
  13. Thanks Rusty, what you describe sounds familiar (similar to how the multiple domain links work), and changing the inflows to 2D_SA boundaries has solved the problem.
  14. I'm developing a model which at the moment is mainly tidal and works fine with no mass errors at all. I've just added a couple of 2D QT point sources to some higher parts of the model to represent some overland flooding from surcharging culverts. However, since adding the QT points, when I run the model the 1D cumulative mass error starts off huge (around 62%) and gradually drops to 1.6% for most of the model run. However, there aren't any 1D elements in the model yet. I've checked out the other mass balance outputs and there don't seem to be any issues with them. The 2D mass balance looks very healthy, even with some quite shallow flows in fairly steep areas. Can anyone offer an explanation? Cheers Tom
  15. Not being able to capture the momentum is an issue I've struggled with and unfortunately not found a decent solution. A reasonable solution would be a combination of the methods we are using. While water levels are below defence level overtopping volumes should really be used and momentum won't be so significant, but once the water level is over the defence then your method would probably work quite nicely. Assuming that the wave height you are applying is appropriate. Taking into account depth-limiting and other such factors as the wave approaches and overtops the structure. Whether the 0.5m rise and fall you are using is appropriate will very much depend on the geometry of the foreshore and the structure that you are modelling. I'd be interested to know if the method you are using shows an approximation of waves being reflected at all, and if (for example) a wave was running at an oblique angle to a structure whether you see local spike in water level as the wave crest passes along the structure. If I have any other bright ideas I'll add them and would very much appreciate everyone else doing the same! Cheers Tom
×
×
  • Create New...