Jump to content

Pavlina Monhartova

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

1 Follower

About Pavlina Monhartova

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hi Josh, Could you please send a .tlf to support@tuflow.com so we have a bit more information? Thank you. Kind Regards, Pavlina
  2. Hi Josh, Recently we had model (not rain on grid) with similar behaviour and double precision was the fix. Due to not enough significant numbers in single precision there was a trickle flow remaining throughout the pipes. The rest of Peter's suggestions are also worth checking, e.g. 1D timestep and justification for the trickle flow, especially with your model being rain on grid. If you can't get to the bottom of this, please send the model to support@tuflow.com for investigation. Thank you. Kind Regards, Pavlina
  3. 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
  4. Hi Abhishek, Thank you for the suggestion. It has been added to the TUFLOW development list to consider for future releases. Kind regards, Pavlina
  5. Hi Rvan Can you please email support@tuflow.com the model input files and the .tlf file, or if too large just the .tlf file to start with and we will help you solve the problem. In regards to the overlapping materials, the material polygon that is being read into TUFLOW last will set the material for the location where it is overlapping. For material polygons within one layer we recommend to remove the overlaps to be sure straight away which material is applied. Kind Regards, Pavlina
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. Hi Melodea, To investigate the issue, please send the .tlf, the bridge GIS layer and the 2d_lfcsh_uvpt_check file to support@tuflow.com. Looking forward to your email. Kind regards, Pavlina
  11. Hi Ketaki, I have sent a DropBox link to your email for the upload from support@tuflow.com. Kind regards, Pavlina
  12. Hi Ketaki, Please use the latest TUFLOW_to_GIS utility available on the TUFLOW website (currently 2018-08-AA). If the issue persist, please send the .xmdf and .2dm to support@tuflow.com Kind regards, Pavlina
  13. Hi Piergiorgio, Unfortunately, this is not currently available as you described. Please send more details to support@tuflow.com (what real life situation are you trying to model, what criteria are you concerned about) and we can consider adding it to our development list and perhaps offer a workaround. Thank you. Kind regards, Pavlina
  14. Thank you Peter for your input. All the suggestions are worth considering for the modelling exercise presented by the initiator of this post. All of them have some caveats that have also been mentioned. Just to elaborate on the unexpected results from the initial query: The layered flow constriction layer modifies the cell width factor and form loss coefficient with height to match the flow area required based on the blockages and form loss coefficients specified in the 2d_lfcsh layer. The solution is still fundamentally a 2D solution (a single velocity is calculated for the cells) and not a 3D solution. Currently it is not possible to 100% block cells in mid air in TUFLOW to simulate a building on piers. We have already had a couple of suggestions to create the layered storage reduction factor and put it on our development list for future releases. However, the storage reduction factor would also be averaged in height similar to the 2d_lfcsh layer. Until this new feature becomes available, as suggested from Peter, you can use different 2d_srf layers for different events to accommodate for the loss of storage. If you decide to try the 1D-2D approach from Peter’s last post with the NA table, the elevation/stage would be in a first column and surface area in the second column. The Manual has been updated to reflect this for the next release. However, based on your 2D cell size and the scale of the building, replacing the building with a 1D node may significantly change the flow around it. If none of the suggestions seems acceptable for your project, maybe you can share with us a bit more about the purpose of your model on support@tuflow.com and we can provide you with a bit more guidance. Kind Regards, Pavlina
  15. Hi Duncan, To add depth as a PO point output is on our list for future releases. In the meantime, you can subtract the depth from water level PO point and DEM point sample. Kind regards, Pavlina
  • Create New...