Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Last week
  2. Hello, I am trying to use the TUFLOW plugin flux plot tool to plot flow from the xmdf's depth layer. I followed the example shown in the TUFLOW wiki: https://wiki.tuflow.com/index.php?title=TUFLOW_Viewer#Plotting_Flow Drawing the flux line works fine, but when I right click to end the line, it either displays zero for the entire time period, or produces the python error copied below. This occurs for a line drawn on both the max depth result and depth at a time. There should be data there, as the PO line shows a hydrograph. I tried this in a blank QGIS map, with projection set and xmdf projection set, and in my working QGIS file. I tried this with multiple xmdf results files. QGIS version: 3.8.2 TUFLOW plugin version: Output is xmdf results every 30 min for 24hrs; other TUFLOW plugin viewing utilities (cross section, timeseries) work well TypeError: 'float' object is not subscriptable Traceback (most recent call last): File "C:/Users/jmital/AppData/Roaming/QGIS/QGIS3\profiles\default/python/plugins\tuflow\tuflowqgis_tuviewer\tuflowqgis_tuflowline.py", line 255, in rightClick self.createMemoryLayer() File "C:/Users/jmital/AppData/Roaming/QGIS/QGIS3\profiles\default/python/plugins\tuflow\tuflowqgis_tuviewer\tuflowqgis_tuflowline.py", line 330, in createMemoryLayer worked = self.tuPlot.tuPlot2D.plotFlowFromMap(None, feat) File "C:/Users/jmital/AppData/Roaming/QGIS/QGIS3\profiles\default/python/plugins\tuflow\tuflowqgis_tuviewer\tuflowqgis_tuplot2d.py", line 602, in plotFlowFromMap velMag = velDataValue[0] TypeError: 'float' object is not subscriptable
  3. Earlier
  4. As a TUFLOW user in Local Government we are often put in a position to check TUFLOW models. One aspect that needs checking is the location of cross section data, and the continuity of capacity along various reaches. That is, the cross sectional area / conveyance progressing from one cross section to the next. I have been searching for tools to do this but as yet have not found anything suitable. Is anyone aware of such a tool that allows both users and checkers of models to quickly assess the many cross sections that may occur within a model? I had started working on a python tool and was hoping to find a tool in the QGIS TUFLOW tool ...
  5. On this topic, what is the best way to review the shape of cross sections and the lengths of reach over which they have been applied ?
  6. All companies are no doubt deplaning/implementing work from home contingency plans due to COVID-19. The following information may be helpful for that planning. If your company owns a Network licence, you can access it from offsite using a VPN connection to your office network. In this situation just make sure your model files are being read/written locally (i.e. don't share them across the VPN back to your office. It will slow the simulations down). If you own a Local licence, though use it in a dedicated high performance modelling computer in the office you can use VPN to connect to your office then use remote desktop to run simulations on the office computer from a remote location. In this situation all the model inputs and outputs remain in your office (not on the home computer you’re using to remote in). This isn't an extra feature you have to pay for. It's simply the way our licences have always been. It's also worth noting that Notepad++ and QGIS don't require licences. As such, there's no model build or result viewing limitations if you use that combination of supporting software (if other licensed programs you regularly use have restrictions). If you have questions please email support@tuflow.com
  7. With the ongoing COVID-19 situation, in conjunction with our partners at Edenvale Young who are organising the conference on our behalf, we have taken the difficult decision to postpone the TUFLOW UK/Europe User Conference which was originally scheduled for June 30th/July 1st. We’re currently looking at other dates later in the year and will post further details as they come available.
  8. Hello everyone, Not having access to the Jabber I would provide some feedback here. Thanks Peter for your input. To add, virtual pipes could also be used to transfer water, same as pumps, it really depends what exactly are you trying to model and what data you have available. For Ezra, a way how to model a rainfall falling on buildings without the 1D error or 2D waterfall like effect would be to use 2d_sa_rf layer and Read GIS SA RF command. You will digitise a small polygon for each building on the ground where you expect the rainfall from the building to fall and assign appropriate attributes – Table 7-6 in the latest TUFLOW Manual. https://www.tuflow.com/Downloads.aspx Kind Regards, Pavlina
  9. Ezra, lol G’day! We sorted that out over Jabber!! Yes it’s me. 😂
  10. Hi, I am trying to model a similar scenario wherein I'm trying to transfer 2D flows from polygons placed on roofs of the raised buildings in the DEM to a 1D pit (Q type) on the lower ground. Basically I was trying to replicate actual conditions wherein roof will drain into gutters, then discharge to the pit on the ground. The model has polygons (2d_bc, type SX) and lines (type CN) connecting the polygon's vertex to the 1D pit. Running the model, I'm getting a TUFLOW ERROR 2050 - Lowest ZC elevation at/along SX link is above 1D node bed. Also tried using lines (2d_bc, type SX) along the cells of the roof gutters instead but I'm still getting the same error. Is there a better way to model this? Thanks! Ezra
  11. Peter, yes! thanks! You helped jog my memory. I used the aforementioned application a lot a long time ago. Drawing one 1d culvert line, then a SX line over multiple cells on the upstream and downstream ends. A CN connection line would connect the 2d cells to flow into the culvert.
  12. The big question is, what is it that would govern the transfer of flow from the one place to another? Passing flows from a 2D cell to a 1D node would normally be done using an HX or SX boundary, and which you'd use would depend upon what you've got going on. An SX boundary can draw water from (or pass water into) an area, if that's appropriate. Probably transferring water from an area of 2D to another area of 2D would also be done via a 1D network of some sort (making the starting assumption that it's not a 2D flow route between the two or you wouldn't be asking!), but again what you'd actually use would depend what was really going on. I'm not sure the above is the most helpful answer I've ever given though; if you wanted to come back with a bit more detail I could try for something more specific! PHA PS. It's nice to see you on the forum again, it's been a while!
  13. Hi all, I am looking for a little guidance in the modelling of a weir. I am installing a weir into my simulation to assess the velocities acting upon the weir as well as the depth of flow over the structure. My first question is, given that I am looking to assess the above information, would modelling the weir in 1D or 2D better suit my purpose? I have been told that sometimes there are issues stabilizing 1D weirs? At the moment, in order to model the weir I have loaded a design DEM of the weir in as a topographical amendment and am running the simulation as normal. (to my understanding, TUFLOW automatically simulates weir flow where appropriate and as such should be modelling this large jump in the ground surface as a weir?) However, I have also been supplied a desired weir discharge coefficient of 1.6 from the designers, is this something that can be directly implemented into the 2D modelling? (or can I view the weir coefficient that the model is simulating?) Is this approach valid or am I way off? I would appreciate any guidance on this matter Cheers Dan
  14. Regarding the subject above, I have a simple problem in determine the base flow (minimum flow) for the stream in XPSWMM model. For example, I have the observed data with the lowest flow 0.2cms. So I need to input the value in the model so that the result will not get lower value than that. I already try to set the value in the box showed (attached). But still not showed in the result. Is there other works need to be done before that or did I do it wrongly?
  15. Hi all, Is there a way I can transfer 2D flows from say within a polygon to another cell or even 1D node? Thanks
  16. Hi all, apologies in advance if this is in the wrong section. I am currently working with a model running on Tuflow 2020 that utilises sub grid sampling. I have: A 1m DEM Specified "Cell Size == 20" as well as "SGS Sample Distance == 1" in the TGC Specified "Grid Output Cell Size == 1" in the TCF I've only been using Tuflow for a couple of weeks so I'm pretty inexperienced, however my understanding of SGS is that Tuflow will read the DEM elevations from within the 20m cell size and use these elevations in the calculations. By default, it'll then write my output grids at a resolution equal to the half the cell size (half of 20m cell = 10m results). But by using "Grid Output Cell Size == 1", this should be refined back to a 1m resolution. At the moment, my outputs are being returned at a 10m resolution. Is it not possible to obtain a finer results grid when using SGS like this, or am I missing another step? Thanks, Josh
  17. Ok thanks. I'm implementing the approach mentioned in my previous post. If possible can I send you a beta version over to test that it works on your system? If you are happy to beta test can you please send me an email at support@tuflow.com. After testing we'll aim to get a 2020-01-AB update released.
  18. 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.
  19. Regarding the subject above, I have a simple problem in determine the base flow (minimum flow) for the stream. For example, I have the observed data with the lowest flow 0.2cms. So I need to input the value in the model so that the flow result will not get lower value than that. I'm currently doing the flood simulation model using XP-SWMM software. Your help is much appreciated. Thank you.
  20. Hi Abhishek, Thank you for the suggestion. It has been added to the TUFLOW development list to consider for future releases. Kind regards, Pavlina
  21. HI groganm and ndeeks, Yes, we are looking at a better fix for this issue. groganm are you receiving CHECK 0623, or is this stopping your simulations? We are looking at changing the file permissions when this file is created, however, on Windows this may not be possible (with Fortran). Reverting to the previous default of "C:\BMT_WBM\Log" is not preferred as creating this folder causes folder permissions for some users (which is why we changed!). If it is not possible to set the file permissions when creating the file, the next option will likely be for each user to have a folder underneath the C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\log\ directory. E.g. C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\log\groganm\ C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\log\ndeeks\ C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\log\par\ This should avoid any permissions issues. Any thoughts / issues? A couple of notes: The location "C:\ProgramData\" is not hard coded, TUFLOW uses the environment variable PROGRAMDATA. So if this has been configured differently it will use the correct path. As well as setting the Simulations Log Folder == using a command in the .tcf, this can also be set using the same command in a “TUFLOW_licence_settings.lcf” file in the same location as the TUFLOW executable. Refer to Section 11.5.1 of the TUFLOW manual for more details. Cheers Phil
  22. Hi groganm, your post is spot on, it's only the shared machines with concurrent users that give me this problem.
  23. 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?
  24. There is guidance on how to apply blockage matrix as per ARR 2016 guidelines in the latest TUFLOW manual.However, the commands still require blockage factors as "Blockage ARI" and the matrix has ARI as an input column (section 5.12.6 of the TUFLOW manual 2018-03-AD). I was wondering if there were any plans to fully transition all commands and inputs from ARI to AEP. I believe it would add a bit more consistency to the modelling and will make it easier to reference things to clients as per ARR guidelines. At the moment, there are several different notations floating around everywhere in the industry. The blockage assessment tool provided by ARR conducts the assessment in AEP: http://arr.ga.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/40511/BLOCKAGE_ASSESSMENT_FORM.pdf The paper used for the matrix (Ollett and Syme (2016)) uses a combination of AEP and ARI: http://www.hydralinc.com/wp-content/uploads/Ollett-Syme-2016-ARR-Blockage.pdf The ARR guidelines seem to generally use AEP (Book 6, Chapter6): http://book.arr.org.au.s3-website-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/
  25. Hi TUFLOW, Is this one still on the list?
  26. Hi ndeeks, The default location of this file changed for the 2020 release of TUFLOW. For the 2018 version of TUFLOW, this was being written to "C:\BMT_WBM\log\", however, not all users have write access to create files / folders in the root C:\. The default location was set to C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\ to avoid this type of issue! The 2020 version of TUFLOW should do a check on the write permissions for this file and if the file does not have write permissions, outputting to this should be skipped. A message "CHECK 0623 - No write permission for: <filepath and name>. Skipping." should be output to the screen and .tlf in this instance. However, based on the above this is not occurring and the above error is created. If you right click on the file in Windows Explorer and select properties, in the security tab you should be able to see the permissions for the file. The location of this file can also be user defined. If you add "Simulations Log Folder == <path>" into the .tcf this will set the location. For example "Simulations Log Folder == C:\" could be used to write to the root directory (I probably wouldn't suggest this). You can also disable the writing of the "_ All TUFLOW Simulations.log" file by setting the path to "Do Not Use", e.g. "Simulations Log Folder == Do Not Use". Please get back to us if you continue to have issues with this. Regards Phil
  27. Hi, despite setting a custom log file path in my DCF file (found buy TULFOW), TUFLOW tries to write to "C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\log\_ All TUFLOW Simulations.log", which returns an error "forrtl: severe (47): write to READONLY file, unit 905, file C:\ProgramData\TUFLOW\log\_ All TUFLOW Simulations.log", and the simulation fails.. This applies to 2020-01-AA-iSP/DP. Can the coding be changed not to write to C:\ ?
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...