Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

Melodea

Members
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Melodea

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday April 21

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Melbourne
  1. Hi All, I have undertaken some further investigation of this bridge and in comparing the results files of a bridge with 0 FLC compared to a bridge with the correct FLC, the results are showing a noticeable afflux. It would appear that the check files are giving 0 in the FLC field due to rounding and significant figures in the output files of the Tuflow check file. Would it be possible for Tuflow to increase the number of decimal places in the output check file so that rounding to 0 does not occur? Thanks so much, Melodea.
  2. Hi There, I am trying to include a 2d_lfcsh in my model to represent a bridge. The bridge is represented as a wide line with a width in the direction of flow of 22m. The bridge has only 2 piers with a fairly wide unrestricted flow area. As such I am including no blockage, but have calculated (using the Bradley HoBW 1998 method) a FLC of 0.025. When I open the 2d_lfcsh_uvpt_check files a value of 0 is showing for the FLC across the whole bridge. I have another bridge in the model, which I have modelled as a polygon, which seems to be working ok from the check files. I can't figure out why I am getting 0 in the check files for the first bridge. Could it be an issue of rounding or significant figures? Or is there something deeper going on that I need to resolve? Would love any suggestions here. Thanks, Melodea.
  3. Hi Chris, Apologies for the delay - I have just forwarded the requested files to support@tuflow. I look forward to your response. Thanks so much, Melodea
  4. Hi Guys, I am running a model that has completed previously. I made some minor changes to things like the code boundary and 2d_bc tables. Upon running the model the .tsf completed and said the model was 100% finished, however the .tlf (log) file stopped part way through the run - 5 Hours into a 14 hour model. Is there any reason this could be happening? Thanks, Melodea
  5. Hi Guys, I am running a model that has completed previously. I made some minor changes to things like the code boundary and 2d_bc tables. Upon running the model the .tsf completed and said the model was 100% finished, however the .tlf (log) file stopped part way through the run - 5 Hours into a 14 hour model. Is there any reason this could be happening? Thanks, Melodea
  6. Hi Phil, Thanks for your reply. Yes, they are all R type pits - I am not using the pit curve method at this stage. I am wanting to know what dimension do I apply to width and what to height. On my pit charts provided by the drainage designer I have pit width and pit length (in plan view of the grated pit). Thanks in advance. Melodea.
  7. Hi Phil, Thanks for your response. Yes, I am referring to the width / height attributes in the 1d_nwk table. Thanks, Melodea
  8. Hi, I'm also interested in this topic. Does anybody have any views on how to model pit blockage?
  9. Hi All, Could somebody please provide me with some clarity around the two pit attributes - width and height. On pit schedules the details that are usually provided are length and width. How do these fit into the width and height attributes? Where can the height of pit details be found? Thanks so much for your help. Melodea.
  10. Hi Mitch, Thank you for your response, I have posted my answers to your questions as well as some screen shots to support@tuflow.com as you suggested. Thanks, Melodea.
  11. Hi All, I have a few pits in my pit/pipe network that are showing zero flow into the pit (according to the TS layer), however the CCA layer is showing the pipes are running full. I used the SA_PITS method to input the flow directly into the pits. Has anyone else seen this before?
  12. Hi Guys and thanks so much for responding to my question. Thanks Tachi, I have read the paper and have actually seen a tutorial on a similar topic with Bill that was very helpful. My question is more specifically on how to do this when using a direct rainfall method such as 2d_SA boundaries. PHA, I might try your method a) above and I am thinking instead of trying a graded Mannings based on depth. i.e say 0.5 when the depth is less than say 100mm, and 0.1 when the depth is greater than say 300mm, with interpolation in between. I might also try your stubby buildings approach as a second run. It will be a good learning experience to do both methods and compare the results. I'll let you know how it goes. Any other suggestions will be warmly welcomed. Thanks, Melodea
  13. Hi All, I am modelling a small catchment that is densely urbanised and contains several large industrial buildings as well as residential areas. I am using 2d_SA boundaries as my flow inputs and I am wondering what is the best way to model the buildings, as zshape blockouts or using the materials layer with very high mannings. I am wanting to see that the water flows around the buildings - especially the industrial buildings. I have also heard it mentioned that I could do cut out shapes from the 2d_SA polygons. What do you think would work the best? Thanks so much, Melodea.
  14. That's fantastic Stephanie, I have to admit I did not realise Word had these functions. Learning so much about Word today!!
×
×
  • Create New...