Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

JJStobart

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JJStobart

  1. Hi Prabhanjan, Could i start by asking if the initial conditions are meaning that maximums are actually happening at this point rather than the actual peak of the event - if so i would strongly suggest re-defining initial conditions or more so if you are aware that they are very unrealistic i would be re-running to define new initial conditions anyway. TUFLOW to GIS can extract the maximum output of the simulation from the .dat or .xmdf file using the flag -tmax - you can also specify output times using the -t flag and then the desired output, for example -t9 will extract at 9 hours. Res to Res has the 'Range' and 'Remove' input switches which would create a new results file either only within a specified range or removing a specific time, for example the beginning of your simulation: https://wiki.tuflow.com/index.php?title=RES_to_RES One would assume once the new results files have been created from res-to-res you could then use the TUFLOW to GIS utility to extract what you want. Kind regards, Joe
  2. Hi Hamish, As far as im aware there is no way to set invert levels automatically to a stand alone culvert (assuming this isnt part of a wider network?). An invert level of -99999 will work providing the pipe is part of a wider network where you do have upstream and downstream inverts defined at either end of the wider system, the -99999 value will then interpolate inverts linearly between the defined inverts. I would recommend either using the value tool over the raster in QGIS to gain ground levels at the desired points (if survey data is not available). Another option would be to run the model without culverts to gain the grid check file, you can then better select your 2d_bc boundary cells and also interrogate the elevation of the cell. I should note that a Z flag can be used in the 2d_bc SX (line or point) to lower the linking cells to that of the defined invert elevations. If a Z flag is used its important to assess the messages layer which will note the change in elevation between in original cell elevation to the lowered value from the Z flag and invert level of the culvert. This should be a 'large' value, the risk is you could get cells that are greatly lowered which will impede flow and possibly case instabilities. Cheers, Joe
  3. Hi Duck The 1d_xs line should be type HW connected to HW table starting from elevation 0. The invert/bed level will be then taken from the 1d_nwk layer attribute and the elevations from HW table will be automatically risen to the invert level. Cheers, Joe
  4. Hi Sam, If you were using just HPC with a fixed grid then i would agree with your above reasons - basically you want to select a grid size to accurately represent the size of the channels you are concerned about and hydraulically significant structures - i.e. those in your areas of interest and all those that route significant flow to and out of said areas. The graph in question in the release notes, you can see that with QPC being used in higher resolution you get a significant increase in routed flow compared to a lower res. In which case when considering grid size of course the higher level of detail the less artificial loss in channels (caused by saw-tooth effects) and less chance of course cells 'trapping water'. Of course when thinking about grid size another limiting factor is the results size and needed memory to run the simulation. The use of QPC allows the user to specify that differing levels of detail in specific areas while having courser elsewhere. The graph really highlights the power of using both QPC and SGS to take advantage of the sub grid elevations to assist in routing flow. Cheers, Joe
  5. Hi Colin, As it currently stands overlapping vzsh are not supported, running tests you will get the outcome as you have found that the 'last read in' vzsh takes precedent and is applied and others ignored so to speak. If you are using classic there may be an option of interest to you using the VG option in a 2d_bc layer. This effectively has been replaced now for the vzsh option as it’s a simpler approach. However, the VG type bc layer allows you to apply change in elevation via a time-series specified within your bc_dbase. This is quite a legacy feature so you will have to refer to previous manuals, there is also a short feed here: https://www.tuflow.com/forum/index.php?/topic/162-variable-geometry-modelling-posted-pre-2007/ If you are using HPC this option unfortunately isn’t available so your options are limited I am sorry to say. I will log your query to our developers however and this will be on a list for future releases. Cheers, Joe
  6. Hi Duck, Just to update, you should be able to apply a xs to a bridge (1d_nwk line). As the bridge length is effectively zero you only apply a single xs: An example of this can be found in one of our example models here: https://wiki.tuflow.com/index.php?title=Example_Models_Home_page The model in question: EG06_1D2D_5m_004.tcf Cheers, Joe
  7. Hi Duck, Cheers for the input Peter, always appreciated. I'll look into this a bit further but I'd assume as when you're modelling a bridge in a full ESTRY network it looks to the xs associated with channels to bring that to the bridge unit as a bridge effectively has a length of zero as discussed above. In that sense, having a bridge unit standalone in the 2D, I would assume it takes your invert levels (so in the case of -99999 the lowest point on your HW table) and applies this as a flat value across the bridge bed and because of this doesn't accept xs data being applied. BB bridges differ from B bridges in that the losses due to flow contraction and expansion, and the occurrence of pressure flow is handled automatically. The only loss coefficients required to be specified are those due to any piers, and the bridge deck when it is submerged and not under pressure flow. Further information on how losses are applied can be found in section 5.7.2.4 of the 2018 TUFLOW manual. Cheers, Joe
  8. Hi there, In short, yes it is possible to connect a 'standalone' bridge in a 1d_nwk file connected to the 2D with SX links. 1d_nwk file with a B/BB type input (for this example i have used a B bridge type). The only attributes needed will be a unique ID, type (B), and then an US/DS inverts set at -99999. (setting the invert levels at -99999 will force tuflow to set both inverts at the lowest point on your HW table, you can enforce invert levels and use the Z flag in your SX line if the user wants this). once you have your 1d_nwk file set up with your CN/SX links snapped to either side you just need to use the 1d_bg file to digitise lines intersecting the the 1d_nwk file. One that links to your HW table and one that links to your LC (losses table) as im using a B bridge type. the only attributes needed here will be the type of each and the source linked to the csv containing the info on the HW and LC values. schematisation of this below/attached: Useful pages with further helpful information: https://wiki.tuflow.com/index.php?title=1D_Bridges https://wiki.tuflow.com/index.php?title=TUFLOW_1D2D_SX_Advice Also as TUFLOW looks at bridges with a length of zero (assuming short structure with little frictional influence) if you have substantially long bridges it might be worth considering changing to a culvert set up. Cheers, Joe
×
×
  • Create New...