Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

par

Administrators
  • Content Count

    392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About par

  • Rank
    Administrator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6206 profile views
  1. For the 2020-01-AB update, this message has been changed from ERROR to WARNING 2807 as per point 3.1.7 of the release notes https://www.tuflow.com/Download/TUFLOW/Releases/2020-01/Doc/TUFLOW Release Notes.2020-01.pdf. Regards Phil
  2. We are pleased to announce that an update to the 2020-01 TUFLOW Release (Build 2020-01-AB) is now available. This update includes a range of enhancements and bug fixes. The release notes (link below) provide a complete description of the 2020-01-AB improvements highlighted in light green within the document. The most significant changes are: More options for SGS map output with partially inundated cells More options for how infiltration applies to SGS cells New hazard output More robust handling of shapefile projections Workflow using asc_to_asc to remap output to a fine resolution for SGS models A range of other bug fixes Links to download: Downloads Page Release Notes (for changes from 2020-01-AB refer to light green shaded text) Any queries or issues, please don't hesitate to email support@tuflow.com. And enjoy! Best Regards TUFLOW Team
  3. This indicates that there is a Quadtree cell for which more than 1 water level boundary (HT, HQ, HX or QT) is being applied. There should be a spatial messages in the _messages GIS file which locates the cell.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. We are pleased to announce the release of TUFLOW Classic/HPC 2020-01-AA. This release was flagged as the 2019 release, but we didn’t quite make 2019, plus we thought given the amazing new features it would be a nice way to start the new year/decade. As we’ve been discussing at our various 2019 workshops, the major new features are to the HPC 2D solver along with a variety of other more general enhancements and bug fixes for both Classic and HPC. The major new features are below. For the full list of changes please refer to the release notes. Quadtree Mesh refinement Sub-Grid Sampling (SGS) of elevations for cell volume / cell face definition Mesh size insensitive turbulence (eddy viscosity) solution Non-Newtonian flow HPC AD (Advection-Dispersion) scheme The new executable and 2020-01 release notes are available for download from: https://www.tuflow.com/Downloads.aspx. This release is included in the 2019/2020 maintenance period, which was invoiced mid last year, therefore licences will need to be updated for the 2019/2020 period. For any licensing queries, please contact sales@tuflow.com. The update to the TUFLOW manual for the 2020-01 release is now underway, but in the meantime the 2018-03 release version of the manual is the latest and should be read in conjunction with the 2020-01 release notes. Happy modelling from the TUFLOW Team and enjoy these amazing new features in the HPC 2D solver. And as always, any queries, suggestions or issues, please don’t hesitate to contact support@tuflow.com. Best regards The TUFLOW Team
  8. We are pleased to announce that an update to the 2018-03 TUFLOW Release (Build 2018-03-AE) is now available. This update includes a range of minor enhancements and bug fixes. The release notes (link below) provide a complete description of the 2018-03-AE improvements. The most significant changes are: New hazard output Bug fix for 1d region with overlapping boundaries Bug fix for models with water level lines and external 1D schemes A range of other bug fixes. Links to download: Downloads Page Release Notes (for changes from 2018-03-AE refer to light grey shaded text) Any queries or issues, please don't hesitate to email support@tuflow.com. And enjoy! Best Regards TUFLOW Team
  9. We are pleased to announce that an update to the 2018-03 TUFLOW Release (Build 2018-03-AD) is now available. This update includes a range of changes for the TUFLOW-AD module, minor enhancements and bug fixes. All users of the 2018-03 release should update to this build. The release notes (link below) provide a complete description of the 2018-03-AD improvements. The most significant changes are: Significant improvements to TUFLOW-AD (advection-dispersion) module. Enhancements to NetCDF outputs to make these accessible as simulation progresses. Enhancements to package model functionality. A range of bug fixes. Links to download: Downloads Page Release Notes (for changes from 2018-03-AC refer to light orange shaded text) Any queries or issues, please don't hesitate to email support@tuflow.com. And enjoy! Best Regards TUFLOW Team
  10. Hi Ramesh, Yes, that does look unusual. Are you able to provide some more information: Are you running TUFLOW Classic or the TUFLOW HPC solver? Are you specify a height-flow attribute or are you specifying a boundary slope (i.e. the "B" attribute in the GIS layer? Which version of TUFLOW are you using? The reason i ask about HPC and classic is that the two schemes treat HQ boundaries differently, an extract from the manual is below: Significant differences may occur at 2D HQ boundaries. Classic treats the 2D HQ boundary as one HQ boundary across the whole HQ line, setting a water level based on the total flow across the line. Due to model splitting to parallelise the 2D domain across CPU or GPU cores, HPC applies the HQ boundary slope to each individual cell along the boundary. As with all HQ boundaries, the effect of the boundary should be well away from the area of interest, and sensitivity testing carried out to demonstrate this. Regards Phil
  11. Hi Rhys, There are two type of NetCDF output in TUFLOW: "NC" which contains a north-south aligned raster. When processed within TUFLOW, this raster output is interpolated from the cell centre, cell corner and 1D water level line values. "CC" which contains cell centred values only and is output with a rotation if your TUFLOW model is rotated. There is not currently a utility that will directly do a conversion from .dat to these formats. The .dat / .2dm file format only contains the cell corner values, no cell centre values are output in this format (as the format does dot support this). It would be possible to convert the data from the .dat file into raster using TUFLOW_to_GIS. However, this utility does not yet support export directly into NetCDF format, so you would need to convert to .asc and then process that into NetCDF, this could be done in Python. Another option would be to use a newer version of TUFLOW to output directly into NetCDF format and use the "Defaults == " command to set the model parameters to match an older version of TUFLOW. Whilst we always try to provide backward compatibility, it is not always possible so if you do use a newer version please check result consistency. It is on our development list to have the utilities support conversion between more of the TUFLOW output formats (e.g. WaterRide, NetCDF, 12D). However, as mentioned earlier these formats do not also store identical data so an exact conversion is not always possible. Hope that helps. Phil
  12. We are pleased to announce that a major update to the 2018-03 TUFLOW Release (Build 2018-03-AC) is now available. This important update includes support for HPC linking to external 1D schemes, enhancements needed for deployment to the Cloud, and bug fixes. All users of the 2018-03 release should update to this build. The release notes (link below) provide a complete description of the 2018-03-AC improvements. The most significant changes are: Support for linking HPC to three external 1D schemes (12D DDA, FloodModeller, XP-SWMM). Enhancements to support deployment of large numbers of simulations to the Cloud. Enhancements to the package model functionality. Enhanced functionality and bug fixes for soil infiltration. Enhancements and bug fixes to Z-shape Gully Lines, Flow Constriction and Layered Flow Constriction Shapes. HPC timestepping efficiency output. Notably, we’ve cleared the deck of important issues and we are now full steam ahead for the 2019 release, which will include the new HPC Quadtree (variable grid sizes) feature. Links to download: Downloads Page Release Notes (for changes from 2018-03-AB refer to light blue shaded text) Any queries or issues, please don't hesitate to email support@tuflow.com. And enjoy! Best Regards TUFLOW Team
  13. We are pleased to announce that an update to the 2018-03 TUFLOW Release (Build 2018-03-AB) is now available. Due to the bug fixes below, all users of Build 2018-03-AA should update to this build. The release notes provide a complete description of the 2018-03-AB improvements. The most significant updates include: Bug fix for virtual pipes models when using a pit search distance of greater than zero. Bug fix for models with variable z shapes. Change to the way HPC models calculate timestep at HQ boundaries. Bug fixes for the "CC" Cell Centred NetCDF Map Output data format. Links to download: Downloads Page Release Notes Any queries or issues, please don't hesitate to email support@tuflow.com. And enjoy! Best Regards TUFLOW Team
  14. par

    arrival time

    Hi Kian, TUFLOW can track this directly for a number of cutoff depths or hazard criteria. For example "Time Output Cutoff Depths == 0.0, 0.1, 0.3" would track both the time of first exceedance of depth greater than the thresholds and duration greater than thresholds, in this case when the depth exceeds 0.0 (i.e. when it first gets wet) as well as when each cell exceeds a depth of 0.1m and 0.3m. This output is available across a range of formats. E.g. Map Output Format == asc xmdf ! output into .xmdf as well as GIS grids Map Output Interval == 600 ! Output Interval of 10 minutes ASC Map Output Interval == 0 ! For the grids only output the maximum (includes time outputs) This will output the time of exceedance and the duration of exceedance for the outputs into both the .xmdf results and also the .asc (ESRI ascii grid), which should load directly into GIS for mapping. Note instead of a depth cutoff you can also use a hazard cutoff, e.g. "Time Output Cutoff Z0 == 0.2" this would track the the time and duration of exceedance of the Z0 hazard (velocity x depth) of greater than 0.2 m2/s. Hope that helps. Cheers Phil
  15. Hi Matty, Thanks for the post, we'll update the manual to make this clearer. Note that you can also use an Else in your scenario logic. My personal preference would be to use something like the below which i think is a bit more logical (at least to me!). If Scenario == Sens(2A_MnInc20pcent) Read Materials File == ..\model\materials.tmf | 1.2 Else If Scenario == Sens(2B_MnDec20pcent) Read Materials File == ..\model\materials.tmf | 0.8 Else Read Materials File == ..\model\materials.tmf ! Baseline roughness End If The Manning's n values for each material number are also output in the .tlf which may be quicker to look at than the uvpt check file! #1 - Material 1: Fixed Manning's n = 0.072 IL/CL values not set. Landuse Hazard ID not set. SRF (Storage Reduction Factor) = 0. Fraction Impervious = 0. Cheers Phil
×
×
  • Create New...