Jump to content
TUFLOW Forum

Monica Macias Jimenez

Members
  • Content Count

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Monica Macias Jimenez

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday January 5

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Edinburgh
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Hi again PHA, I have rechecked my outputs after reading your message, actually it makes sense. I totally understood what you wanted to explain. We were expecting higher velocities in the bank than in the center as a consequence of the river bend there but thinking about it is not that accused. Thank you very much for your help and clarifications! Monica
  4. Hi PHA, Please see attached two screnshots from one area of interest in our model. This part of the channel is nested as you can see from the results and the dots are the 2D2D connections. As you can see from the DTM there are deeper areas in the left bank in this case around the area sticking out however, the velocities are higher in the center of the channel. In terms of linking, the 2D2D is linked at the top of bank (yellow line) this was done in a previous model which has been verified so I did not modify that. You can see from the results that the connections are in a white area not being flooded. At the top I have a dummy downstream boundary with a spill in Flood Modeller. The spill has the same cross section as the joining point from 2D. The connections are done by SX line. Anyway, independently from what is coming into the nested model I would expect that after more than 1km downstream that is not that influential and would expect patterns following the DTM depth. Any ideas? Thanks, Monica
  5. Hello modelers, I am having difficulties with a nested model. I have a 1D2D model and then in the channel of my watercourse I have a nested 2D domain. The aim is assessing scour in the banks therefore velocity is the most important factor here. I have the same roughness all around in the channel therefore, I would expect higher velocities where the LiDAR points out at deeper areas and also at the outside bank of the channel curves. However, I am not observing that and I am trying to think out of the box to find an explanation. I would say apart from roughness, flow (which should be fairly constant as there is no much flooding) and DTM profile I have not other variables which would affect to my results. The model is unstable after the peak but looking at the peak and before, I do not see what I would expect (a "similar pattern of the DTM for the velocities according to depth"). Maybe I am missing something and any help will be very appreciate it. Thanks, Monica
  6. This workflow is great, thanks for that Rachel! It is generally what I do and how I assess the health of a model however, on top of all that I also use Crayfish in QGIS. I display MB1 in Crayfish and I can see where the MB errors happen but as this is based on cells and not in the overall model is not coinciding with what is seen in the csv file output (good to display dvol in comparison to Cum ME (%) to assess if the MB errors are out of +-1% at the peak of the simulation which is the most important point generally). My question here is... would you give more credit to what is seen in the csv and in the tlf as summary than what is seen in Crayfish?
×
×
  • Create New...