Stephanie Dufour

Administrators
  • Content count

    20
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Stephanie Dufour

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  1. There are limited places left for the March Introductory Training in London, UK! If you have any questions or would like to register, please feel free to message me or email training@tuflow.com.
  2. We are pleased to announce a series of Introductory TUFLOW Training workshops to be held in our central London, UK office. The course is ideal for users who are new to the software and will be run in a small group setting, providing maximum benefit to all attendees. Dates announced so far are: 21st – 22nd March 2017 19th – 20th September 2017 For further information or to register, please visit the dedicated page on the TUFLOW website: http://www.tuflow.com/Training.aspx?ubt
  3. For direct rainfall models, we would typically recommend using the double precision (iDP) version of TUFLOW. This is because of the large amounts of sheet flow present in the model that would benefit from the additional significant figures. The use of single precision (iSP) is typically a key factor in the high mass errors experienced for these types of models. We've observed that models using iDP can take approximately 25% longer to run and use twice as much memory. For this reason, we would recommend using iSP for the majority of TUFLOW simulations unless it is a model that uses direct rainfall or has high elevations. If ever in doubt, a sensitivity test could always be carried out and the impact on results and mass error compared. In addition, you may also want to consider lowering the cell wet/dry depth. The default value is 0.002m and represents the depth at which TUFLOW determines when a cell wets and dries. We recommend lowering this value (0.0002m) for models using a direct rainfall approach because of the high proportion of shallow flow. Best of luck and hopefully some or all of these suggestions sorts out your problem! TUFLOW Support Team
  4. There are only 6 weeks now until the TUFLOW UK 2015 Conference. We are currently busy working with Edenvale Young putting the final touches on the agenda which we hope to release in the coming week. Along with Bill Syme, we are pleased to announce Phil Ryan and Chris Huxley from BMT WBM will be in attendance. Phil is the lead TUFLOW developer and will be familiar to many of our users through his role in the TUFLOW Support Team. Phil will be presenting on the powerful new input and output features available in the TUFLOW 2015 release. Chris is our North American TUFLOW support and sales manager and will be presenting the results of benchmark tests that have been conducted on 2D hydraulic modelling packages. The testing came about following the 2014 Floodplain Managers Association Conference which highlighted the need to provide users with an informed understanding of the relative strengths and weaknesses of available software. The conference provides an opportunity to meet Bill, Phil and Chris, to learn about the exciting new features of the TUFLOW 2015 release and to shape the future of the TUFLOW Product Suite. Please head to this dedicated page to register for the Conference.
  5. Hi Siripen, Please refer to this other thread: http://www.tuflow.com/forum/index.php?/topic/1537-ilcl-parameters-for-soils-in-uk/
  6. Hi Ajinkya, Table 4.7 in the SuDS Manual (C697) produced by CIRIA provides a range of infiltration rates based on soil type. The sensitivity of the results when using the Green-Ampt method likely lie in the correlation of UK Soils types to the USDA soil types hardwired in TUFLOW. It can be very subjective trying to relate information obtained from National datasets to the USDA soil types which is perhaps why you have noticed a variation in model results. Note that we are currently working with a University to derive data for UK specific soils. Should you proceed with using the ILCL method as opposed to the Green-Ampt, keep in mind that this is a more simplistic method of estimating infiltration and the soil will only become saturated based on a defined depth to groundwater (the default is infinitely deep). It is recommended to write the Map Output Types IR (infiltration rate), CI (cumulative infiltration) and dGW (depth to groundwater) to help you determine the amount that is infiltrated in the model.
  7. For all our UK users, you will be pleased to hear that the Environment Agency has announced that from September 2015, their tiled and composite LIDAR datasets will become open and free for all users to access even for commercial purposes. By permitting the data to be accessible to all, they hope to improve the quality of flood risk modelling for the benefit of local communities. The datasets will cover approximately 70% of England. Remember that TUFLOW permits the direct reading in of DSM/DTM LiDAR datasets in its native ASCII format without the need for any pre-processing via the Read GRID Zpts command. This has the advantage of retaining full traceability to the original datasets as well as allowing for your model to (very likely) be cell size independent.
  8. We are pleased to announce the date for the forthcoming 2015 UK TUFLOW Conference which has been confirmed in Bristol. The conference will contain a mix of presentations, workshops and round table discussions involving a range of flood related themes. Flood risk professionals, project managers and those with an interest in two-dimensional modelling and flood hydraulics should find this a fascinating insight into the current techniques for application as well as recent advancements in TUFLOW with the impending release. The conference will also be a great opportunity to network and to identify best practice procedures and areas where companies are using the capabilities of the software in new and innovative ways. The conference dates and location are: Wednesday, 11th November – Thursday, 12th November 2015 MShed Wapping Road Princes Wharf BS1 4RN Bristol Please refer to the link below for more information and to register for the conference: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/tuflow-conference-2015-tickets-18033479623
  9. Hi rambo48v, There are a few options available however it will require using third party software. SMS (limited trial version)Instructions for extracting flow vs time by digitising a feature arc are provided on the TUFLOW Wiki. You may also extract water level/depth over time by digitising a feature point. http://wiki.tuflow.com/index.php?title=SMS_Tips#Post_Processing_Results Flood Modeller (unlimited free version)Load the 2D results (in DAT format) into the interface. Time-series results can then be extracted using the 'time-series' tool found within the '2D Results Tool Group'. See the help file for further instructions. Regards Steph
  10. Hi Siripen, This might just be a case of changing the method used to display contours. Under "Display Options", select the "Contours" tab. Under the "Contour Method", change this from the default of "linear" to "Colour Fill". The attached figure shows the results of a direct rainfall model I am reviewing where both "contours" and "vectors" have been selected under the "Display Options".
  11. Hi Claire, There are three TUFLOW commands available for defining the UK flood hazard output. These are: UK Hazard Formula (defines the formula used to calculate flood hazard output) UK Hazard Debris Factor (set a constant debris factor for all depths/velocities) UK Hazard Land Use (sets the land use category for varying debris factor with depth/velocity) For your specific example, the commands required are: UK Hazard Formula == D*(V+0.5)+DF UK Hazard Land Use == CONSERVATIVE To write the flood hazard output results, you can choose to output one or both of ZUK0 or ZUK1 using the command Map Output Data Types. The former is the value of the hazard formula and the latter is the hazard category. If one of these map output types is specified, and none of the three UK hazard commands have been included in the tcf, TUFLOW will use the default settings which happen to be the ones in your example. This can be confirmed in the tlf file. The default for the UK Hazard Debris Factor command is 1.
  12. In addition to Phil's suggestion, you can add "Back" , "Forward" and "Home" buttons to Word by heading to the "Customise Quick Access Toolbar" section. I've found these invaluable for navigating the TUFLOW Manual.
  13. Hi Siripen, Are you able to please send through the GIS layers shown in your figure to support@tuflow.com along with the messages layer? Someone from the Support team will have a look at your query as soon as possible.
  14. Hi Alastair, Please also refer to this post which may be of use: http://www.tuflow.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1441
  15. Question I am trying to model a structure controlled by operating rules where the gate opens / closes based on the water level downstream. The result file _1D_O.csv shows that the gate remains in its initial state for the entire simulation. Why? Answer This is most likely due to the documentation in the 2013-12 release notes not being updated to reflect changes to how to specify the period of time a gate takes to open or close, or a pump to start up or shut down. All the “Period” commands are now centralised to be the same for all operatable structures. For gates, the command Gate Period [ {} | (min) ] should be replaced with Period Opening/Closing [ {} | (min) | (s) ] in the release notes. Also, the 2013-12 release of TUFLOW defaults to -99999 as the period in which the gate takes to open, whether or not this command is specified within the .toc file, therefore the Period Opening/Closing == command should be specified to override the default. As an example, specifying Period Opening/Closing == 0.5 or Period Opening/Closing (min) == 30 will set the time taken to open/close the gate to half an hour. Note that this also affects the command Pump Period [ {} | (min) ] used for operating pumps. The correct command to use in this case is Period Opening/Closing or alternatively Period Startup/Shutdown can be used (both these commands are identical). A revised default will be hardcoded into the next release of TUFLOW and the correct commands documented in the updated Manual. In the meantime, our suggested workaround for the 2013 release is to ensure either Period Opening/Closing [ {} | (min) | (s) ] or Period Startup/Shutdown [ {} | (min) | (s) ] is specified in the .toc file when modelling a pump or gated structure. It is also planned to offer the capability of specifying different periods for opening and for closing.