Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Hi Lizzie, This functionality is not currently available, however is on the development list and hopefully something that will be added soon. Thanks for your suggestion Thanks, Ellis
  3. Last week
  4. Hello, I don't know if it's already available (or if not if this could be logged as a feature request) but is there a way when viewing TUFLOW results in QGIS using the TUFLOW viewer plugin, to be able to hover over e.g. your water depths in the plan view and get the water level value to be displayed? (I suppose a bit like the QGIS value tool plugin). Thanks, Lizzie.
  5. Hi Richard, There are only two possible options available at the moment - classic or 1D weir as the global factor is not supported in HPC yet. Knowing that your HPC model is going to be large you might need to play with the 1D weir and conduct some sensitivity testing. Kind regards, Pavlina
  6. Earlier
  7. Hi, I have an HPC model (for a rating curve review) with a 2d weir in it that I'd like to change the weir factor for. Since 'Read GIS WrF' isn't in HPC yet what would you suggest? Obvious options are: Try in classic - this current model will feed in to a larger HPC model and this option won't be available there, so that doesn't seem like a great way forward. Use a 1d weir - I have tried this, with unsatisfactory results. If nothing comes of this post then I will try again here. Use a global factor - worried about this affecting the model in other places - would probably not be transferable to the larger model. Thanks,
  8. We have locked in Perth training dates for early 2020. We will be offering a 2 day hands-on introductory training and our hugely popular 2019 release workshop and hands-on day. To register please download the flyer or email training@tuflow.com. For more information on the 2019 release and what you can expect on the day, checkout the following link: Dates Introductory Training (computer based) 2019 Release Workshop 2019 Release Training (computer based) 21-22 January 2020 23 January 2020 24 January 2020 Introductory Training Two-day computer-based training that is aimed at new TUFLOW modellers. The course includes TUFLOW theory, followed by practical model creation and review of results. 2019 Release Workshop Aimed at all TUFLOW users from modellers to managers. The day will provide detail and discussion of the new features included in the 2019 release. 2019 Release Training Computer-based training is tailored towards existing modellers who want to learn, and have a hands-on experience, using the 2019 release features. People attending this session are advised to also register for the release workshop the day before. We look forward to seeing you there! Kind regards, The TUFLOW team
  9. Hi all, I am simulating a direct rainfall model, there is several deep slope embankments locating within the model. Once the rainfall begin to be started I suddenly get large depth (0.3m roughly) on the embankment surface, this does look very strange especially as there has only been small of rainfall on the catchment when they start appearing. Can someone know the reason and solve this issue ? Thanks for any help !
  10. I found this topic very interesting but unfortunately I do not get what PHA means with "HX wings" as I only have used wings in the 1D cross sections when there are instabilities and the grid size is fairly small (like 2m or so). Could anyone upload an schematisation please? The way I would do it is extending the HX to be snapped to the CD polygon as the best representation comes from having the same/approximately width in 1D and 2D but also the same or similar elevation at the end of the CN line (to account for the top of bank). I generally use a zln_TOB (top of bank) layer to impose the elevations I have in surveyed cross sections but I also get elevations from my LiDAR in between and for interpolates. I will be looking forward to know if the applied schematisation is the same as the one I would use. I am always eager to learn and improve Regards to all, Monica
  11. Hi All, I was wondering if you can let me know what is the command in asc_to_asc tool that can be used to remap a lower resolution flood map using a higher resolution DEM? Thanks
  12. The TUFLOW team, together with our long-term collaborators, Edenvale Young, have been planning the 2020 UK TUFLOW Conference. The dates have now been finalised and we are pleased to announce that the 2020 UK TUFLOW Conference will be returning to Bristol and the world-renowned Bristol Zoo, on Tuesday 30 June and Wednesday 1 July. If you have an exciting TUFLOW application that you would be interested in presenting then please contact us at info@tuflow.com to register your interest. We’ll be releasing more details later in the year.
  13. Dear TUFLOW community, I am having a big problem with the projection and visualisation of the produced grids by my 1D2D linking model and I am a bit desperate as I do not find much information about it. I have included "asc" within the "Map Output Format" to get the ascii files created by the model. However, when I am analysing the ascii results I observe they do not match the grid created by the model (see image below). I have a grid of 6 m set up in the tgc but the results suggested a smaller grid. The projection within the tcf is described with a coordinate system such as "CoordSys Earth Projection xxx". All the information within the model including the DEM files are in the same projection therefore I do not understand this. I have also produced the ascii files using a bat to produce them from the xmdf files but this does not make a difference. I do not know what to do since I have never seen this before. The model was inherited but I have not seem any anomaly in the model schematisation so far. I would really appreciate help with this topic since it is urgent (I cannot properly assess water depth for example) and looking within the manual I did not find any answers, neither in Internet. Thank you very much in advance, Monica
  14. Hi There, I am running a fairly large rain on grid model and initially thought about multiple domains to reduce run times but this isn't available with the hpc solver yet. Is it possible to extract the hydro graphs at the intended 2D2D boundary (using a coarse grid model) and then use this as an input into a separate fine grid model? I imagine this would essentially mean a hydro graph for every coarse grid cell along the boundary. Many thanks
  15. Old thread alert! However, it seems a good place for the following... I wonder if we could have quite the opposite of what I first asked for way back when, and have an option to make the copied model much larger! This time, by looking in the place where model results would be being written, if the simulation was actually happening, and if there is anything there (with the right name) then copy that into the copy of the model. Just to make things easier to bundle up together for issue. It may be that this would fit much better with the -pm option, rather than -c, but I'm still a little wary of -pm as it's done the occasional funny thing when dealing with a model with lots of scenarios (while -c will always perform flawlessly). Alternatively, perhaps a completely separate utility that just goes and gets the results (I don't always want another copy of the model, I just want the results collated) ight be a good idea..? Thoughts very welcome! It may be that there's some neat and clever way of doing the above already? I normally just do it manually, but copying a few files from the main Results/ folder, then some from plot/, then csv/ and gis/, then the .flts from grids/ all gets a little tedious! So anything to speed up the process would be appreciated. Thanks! Peter.
  16. ...but your max and min will be at the start and end of your simulation, as the model only permits the groundwater to fill up at present.
  17. We’re interested in hearing your opinion to help guide our future direction: What modelling aspects are important to you? What your model build and result viewing environment preferences are? What you would like to see added to TUFLOW in the future? How you feel we’ve performed over the past 12 months? Please spare 5 minutes to complete the 2019 TUFLOW User Survey: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/XX5HKC3 Many Thanks, The TUFLOW Team
  18. Hi Monika, TUFLOW doesn't do any datum transformations, so everything that you specify needs to be relative to a consistent datum of your choosing. So yes, your boundaries and bathy all need to be using the same datum, and the outputs will then also be relative to that same datum. I hope that helps, Peter.
  19. Hello All, I am confused about a thing. Does TUFlow has any reference for the output? I mean, water level that I get as model output is based on which reference/datum? Does it depend on the input boundary datum? If I provide water level data as upstream and downstream boundary condition, I guess I need to maintain same datum. Do I also need to have the same datum as water level for the bathymetry data that I use to prepare the domain? Thanks
  20. The 2019 TUFLOW Release Australian Workshops start in a few weeks, and this year’s release is a big one so if you're interested signup soon as there are limited places remaining. The dates of the courses are provided further below and on our training page. To register download the flyer or email training@tuflow.com. The 2019 release is another game changer off the back of last year’s highly successful TUFLOW HPC engine release. This year there are major enhancements to the HPC engine and other exciting developments including: · Quad-tree mesh resolution refinement · Sub-Grid Sampling (SGS) that utilises the finer detail of the underlying DEMs/TINs in the hydraulic calculations · A new sub-grid turbulence scheme that has minimal cell size dependency · Non-Newtonian flow for modelling slurry and tailings dam failures · The TUFLOW Viewer GIS tools · Numerous new minor features Quad-tree refinement offers substantial benefits allowing you to very easily have finer cells where the hydraulics and topography require those extra levels of resolution (or coarser cells in areas that don’t need high resolution). Sub-Grid-Sampling (SGS) in combination with the new sub-grid turbulence enhancements is proving to be a game changer for fixed grid modelling. For whole-of-catchment models (e.g. direct rainfall models), the response times are quicker and water retention substantially less, especially where the DEM resolution is much finer than the cell size. For deep sided smooth channels, for example a concrete lined trapezoidal channel, that are not mesh aligned the flow patterns no longer have “saw-tooth” effects and now closely obey Manning’s formula. Sensitivity of results to mesh size is greatly reduced and effects due to rotation of the grid almost eliminated. This is far-reaching in that TUFLOW HPC is now able to produce the same quality of results as a well-designed, high resolution, flexible mesh construction, even if using a coarse cell size. The release workshops will provide detail on the new features and the hands-on computer-based training the day following allows you to apply the new features to models. Due to over-subscription of our introductory training courses in the middle of this year, we’re also offering another round of introductory courses the week prior to the release workshop/training. 2019 Release Workshop Schedule and Details Location Introductory Training (computer based) 2019 Release Workshop 2019 Release Training (computer based) Brisbane 15 - 16 October 22 October 23 October Sydney 5 - 6 November 12 November 13 November Melbourne 26 - 27 November 3 December 4 December Introductory Training Two-day computer-based training that is aimed at new TUFLOW modellers. The course includes TUFLOW theory, followed by practical model creation and review of results. 2019 Release Workshop Aimed at all TUFLOW users from modellers to managers. The day will provide detail and discussion of the new features included in the 2019 release. 2019 Release Training Computer-based training is tailored towards existing modellers who want to learn, and have a hands-on experience, using the 2019 release features. People attending this session are advised to also register for the release workshop the day before. Looking forward to seeing you there! Best Regards Bill Syme
  21. Hi Lucy, The depth to groundwater (DGW) isn't predefined with the -type switch within the TUFLOW_to_GIS utility such as depth, water level and velocity, however, there is a way how to convert these less common data types as well. XMDF files contain a number of scalar (s) and vector (v) datasets. For example, switch -s1 will convert the first scalar dataset. A summary of the available datasets is listed within the DOS window when TUFLOW_to_GIS is preprocessing results and the summary is unique for every XMDF. If you write "pause" at the end of the processing batch file, the DOS Window won't disappear and you can scroll through to find the summary and the number for the depth to groundwater dataset. Below snapshot shows an example of such summary and the Depth to groundwater output could be converter to ASC with -s6 switch. Please note that maximum and minimum is not available for the depth to groundwater output and switch -t<output time> will need to be specified to produce the output for a specific time. Kind regards, Pavlina
  22. Hi Melodea, The latest 2018-03-AE TUFLOW release is rounding up the third decimal space for form loss coefficient in the 2d_lfcsh layer. We already have a task created on our development list to increase the number of decimal spaces for future releases. Kind regards, Pavlina
  23. 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.
  24. Hi, Is there a way of outputting the maximum/minimum depth to groundwater in .asc format? I can't find what the switch is for that one if there is one (i.e. -typed for depth). I've tried -typedGW and -typeDWG to no avail. Is this a possible output? Thanks
  25. Hi Peter, Thank you for posting this. It isn't currently possible to do what you have described, however we already have this "super scenario" task on our development list for future releases. Please stay tuned. Kind Regards, Pavlina
  26. Dear all, What I'd like to be able to do is run my model with a single named scenario and have the file names come out with only that scenario, but have that scenario reference a bunch of other scenarios which want running in combination. Here's what I mean: I have a model which I've used scenarios to represent a whole pile of engineering options, scatter around the area; lets call these OptA, OptB, OptC, OptD, etc. Having tested them individually, some have been selected to try in combinations. combination 1 would be OptA, OptC and OptG, say, which combination 2 would be OptA, OptB and OptW. I'd like to be able to reference simply "tuflow.exe -s comb1 mySim_~s~.tcf", where the .tcf contains a command that says something like: If Scenario == comb1 Activate scenario == OptA ! Yes, I've made up this command for the purpose of the example Activate scenario == OptC Activate scenario == OptG End If If Scenario == OptA !Do some stuff ... End If etc such that it then processes the rest of the .tcf as if OptA, OptC and OptG have been called as scenarios, BUT the results are all going to be called only mySim_comb1.tlf, for example. Is this currently possible? My understanding is that scenarios can be set in the tcf but would be overwritten by the command flag -s (so couldn't be called by it!), and also would still turn up in the filenames. I don't think variables help..? I could just add "comb1" to any If Scenario == OptA statement, but it's messy and I might miss one somewhere; I'd rather just be able to tell it when I ask for comb1, also do OptA. If it's not currently possible, do you think it could be implemented please? It'd keep file names tidy for easier bulk processing of complex projects and help keep tcf If Scenario statements cleaner (which can get quite messy enough!). Thanks, Peter.
  27. note that this is the total form loss applied using Method A (no longer the default) as the bridge loss approach in 1D. Section 5.7.2.3 of the 2018-03 version of the manual states, "once the downstream water level is within 10% of the flow depth under the bridge, a bridge deck submergence factor is phased in by applying a correction for submerged decking using a minimum value of 1.5625 (if the specified loss coefficient is greater than 1.5625, this value is applied)". A derivation of that value follows in the manual in the past I have subtracted the layer 1 FLC from 1.5625 to get a value for layer 2 when using the "cumulate" method. However, the value applied will not reach 1.5625 until the top of layer 2 due to the weighting of the FLCs shown in the equation in section 6.12.2.2 of the manual. It is similarly impossible to select a value for layer 2 that produces a FLC of 1.5625 from the bottom of layer 2 as the value you need to apply to achieve that FLC becomes infinitely large as the depth above the underside of the bridge approaches zero. I think that if you wanted to reproduce the 1D Method A approach, you'd need layer 2 to represent that part of the flow area "within 10% of the flow depth under the bridge", so that the loss is equal to 1.5625 at the point where the water hits the underside of the bridge deck
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...