Jump to content
GMS, SMS, and WMS User Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Last week
  2. I would not use the obstructions. And you are welcome.
  3. I have made new meshes for each option and it appears the results are more consistent with what would be expected with the various culvert box sizes. For the culverts, would it be better to represent my vertical piers with obstructions in the BC or to add the small element along the sides? Thanks again for all the tips and advice in this thread.
  4. For the culvert option, check the culvert.dat file and compare them. The overtopping should be in there too if I remember right. You are correct about the pressure flow I think. You will need to adjust the walls to make it the right size. Also, remember that the velocity goes to 0 by the voids. That will affect your flow. Try to make a small element next to it to mitigate this effect.
  5. I have successfully ran the model several times with various crossing configurations. I have a few reservations about the accuracy of the results. First the RCP culvert options. I made the changes we discussed and the model successfully runs. I created two simulations using the same mesh, material, and monitor coverages. I duplicated the BC I used for the four 48" RCP culverts and modified the BC to use five 48" RCP culverts. The results show an increase in water elevation upstream, even with the extra culvert. The only thing I changed was the number of culverts in the HY-8 window. Is there more to this than what I have done? These results do not match what I believe would make sense. More pipes = more flow which should lower the upstream water elevation or at the very least not cause an increase. Also, I know this option will overtop at the 100 year flow. Does it matter that the crossing is over topped, but due to the culvert assignment, the elements over the culvert display as dry? Will this impact my results in anyway? (see the screenshot for clarity) For the pressure culvert (box culverts) options. I believe I know this answer, based on my results, but will I need to create a new mesh and modify it to fit the dimensions of each culvert? I.E. to model a 3 barrel at 10'Wx9'H and at 10'Wx10'H, I created one mesh and two BC coverages and modified the ceiling elevations accordingly (I set the crest for both at an elevation that would not overtop). These two models created the same water elevations upstream. Which isn't a stretch with just one foot higher ceiling. To test my theory, I used the same mesh and duplicated the BC of one and changed the length across the weir from 30' (3x10'W barrels) to 48' (3x16'W barrels) to model a 3 barrel 16'Wx9'H culvert. The results yielded no change in the upstream water surface elevation. So before I made a new mesh for every option of width, I wanted to confirm that I will have to do this and adjust the location of my vertical walls and locations of the piers to accurately represent the various widths of box culverts to model.
  6. I'm having difficulty creating an animation of an observation plot (i.e. Film Loop Setup >> Select Film Loop Type >> Plot WIndow). The plot works fine in the plot window, but when the animation is created the y axis goes blank and the curve disappears. I've tried messing with the axis scale options but nothing seems to correct it. Any suggestions for what I might be missing? Also I'm using an older version of SMS (11.1.5) so not sure if its a bug that's been fixed later. Thanks, Keith
  7. Excellent! We all are always learning! Glad I could help.
  8. Thanks for all the advice and help. Always learning with the software. I modified the slopes and the model is running now. I thought I had a good grip on Pressure BC models, but I got a curve ball with these RCP culverts. Thanks again for all the help. I will apply all the techniques and I will get back to you if there is still issues. It appears to be running the full simulation now.
  9. The model does not need to see the vertical walls using HY8 because once the water goes into the culvert, it will come out the other side of the culvert. Therefore, no flow will be between your two BC arcs and the vertical face is irrelevant. Yes, the pressure flow option is for box culverts and box bridges. When using the pressure flow option, your outside vertical walls can be represented as voids as well. The number of elements in this channel looks good, but I would add one or two to the driveway. Also, use the mesh quality feature to check out the elements. That will help the fidelity of your mesh.
  10. Yes, the vertical walls are seeming to make the model crash quicker. So even though the proposed crossing will have vertical walls in the form of retaining wall blocks, the model does not need to represent that? Is this taken care of in the HY-8 settings when assigning culvert attributes? Using the 2D culvert with pressure flow BC would more accurately represent a Box Culvert or a span bridge, correct? I am using this mesh to model my pressure structures for a 3 barrel box culvert and a span bridge (the holes in the mesh are only for the multi-barrel box culvert). For doubling the nodes you mean instead of having 6 elements across the creek at this point, I should use 12 like in the pressure images below? I only added more elements to this mesh so I could delete the elements for the 8-inch piers of the box culvert.
  11. First of all, I misspoke. You use the vertical walls when modeling a culvert as a pressure flow bridge. I see why you are getting a crash here. Your elements are nearly on top of each other. Seeing the pics helps a lot. You need refine you mesh more near the culvert itself. Those near vertical walls at the face of your culvert are unnecessary. I would try 2 things: 1. Refine your mesh at the culvert with more slope going up to the road. 2. Do a 2D culvert with voids on the side and make your culvert BC into a pressure flow BC. Either way, I would at least double the nodes in the vicinity of the culvert. It shouldn't add much to your run time. Hope this helps!
  12. I've attached a plan view and a view of the downstream side of the berm. This is before deleting elements to help the vertical wall issue. Hopefully this helps.
  13. The culvert should snap to the mesh where the invert of the culvert is. As for pics, just helps to see if there are any other problems that might stand out that you are not aware of. I have had better luck with quads for culverts than triangles.
  14. The culvert option will over top at the 100-yr flow. The idea would be for it not to over top until the 25-year storm event but let it act as a weir during a higher event. I believe ultimately the culverts will not work but I need to show the client why it will not work. Does the culvert BC need to snap (Shift-Q) to the bottom of the berm or the top? Currently it is to the bottom. I will try deleting the elements along the face of the berm and see if that works for the 10-year flow. Any suggestions of screen shots that would help with this? I can provide screen shots but I am unsure of what might actually be of benefit to show. Thanks for the response.
  15. First, I would recommend updating to the latest version of SMS, 13.0.5. Second, yes you should use voids to represent your culvert walls. Vertical, or near vertical walls have always given me trouble. The voids only present a problem if the structure is overtopped. The model might say 100% complete, but you need to look at the tab of the run to verify the model ran to completion and didn't crash, which is what it sounds like it is doing. If these suggestions do not help, let us know. Also, at a couple of screen shots and that might get you a few more ideas to try.
  16. I am attempting to model a new driveway across a creek to determine the structure required to have a "no-rise" impact on the base flood elevation of the creek. In doing so, I am trying multiple options. I have successfully completed an existing "no-bridge" model and multiple box culvert and bridge options, I am having trouble with the models with HY-8 multi-barrel RCP culvert options. I copied and modified the existing mesh to create a berm to the dimensions of the driveway across the creek, added hy-8 culvert BC elements and ran the model. The model will say 100% complete, but will only complete about 1 hour of a 2 hour simulation. I have increased and decreased the time step to attempt to resolve this issue. In some cases it helps, others it doesn't. In either case, the results are very sporadic, changing with every time step. Is it normal to see such varying depths and velocities throughout the entire simulation when modeling culverts? Is there anything I can check that I might have over looked that might cause these results? I am using SMS 13.0.3. I have patch elements for both my channel and proposed driveway surface. Equilateral elements between the BC lines. I do have a material assigned to the roadway surface between the BC lines, I read in the newer versions it was not necessary to leave this area unassigned anymore for culverts. I do have near vertical elements on each side of the berm, would this area need to be deleted to represent a vertical wall? I have the inverts of my culverts 0.01 feet above the stream bottom as they will be placed in the creek at existing elevation and grade. I do not know what else to try as I am not getting any errors and the model will run but the results are not reliable. I would appreciate any help or advice. Thanks!
  17. Earlier
  18. Hi, I was wondering why generating map data from dwg-files with "Convert" -> "Feature Objects..." takes so much longer since SMS 12. I still have to use SMS 11 for larger CAD files, because it just takes one second compared to half an hour or even longer in SMS 12 or 13. Is that a bug? Also: Why has the feature "Elements" -> "Rectangular Patch..." been deprecated? My coworkers and I were quite used to that workflow and for us it has been a faster experience compared to the workflow in https://www.xmswiki.com/wiki/SMS:Element_Patch_Workflow. Thanks in advance
  19. Try limiting the minimum interpolation value to zero. For this, you have to go interpolation dialogue and then select truncate values and set the minimum value to zero. Hope, this helps.
  20. Good Morning Forum Members, Is it possible to import a 2D (x-z plane) K field for a vertical slice of a heterogeneous aquifer? Or my only option is to paste layer-by-layer values in the LPF package? Thank You Saubhagya
  21. Thank you Donald. I hope I will get something to understand and solve this problem soon. I am stuck with it for a couple of days.
  22. hmm, I am not sure what it means either. I have never had that error, but it has been a while since I worked with TUflow. Make sure your elevation data extends beyond your mesh domain. You can keep redrawing the elements shown as negative until you cover them all. You could regenerate your mesh with a new domain. Renumber your elements. Sorry I can't be more helpful.
  23. Hello All, I have built a mesh of river body with MIKE Zero, transferred it to SMS. Edited with SMS and saved the .2dm file. Then tried to run it with TUFlow. The following error is coming. I created a new coverage with materials and assigned material properties that is needed. Please help me with possible suggestions. Thanks in advance.
  24. Hi Donald, I have tried to delete this and its neighbouring elements. Then it shows the same error with another element not very near to it. Also I really don't understand what they mean by negative area. Thanks
  25. There is a couple of things I would try. One thing is I would delete the element and the ones nest to them, and then draw them back manually. Another is changing your boundary shape. Does it need to have that point? Let me know if this helps!
  26. Hi Donald, Thank you for your reply. I am attaching the picture of the particular cell. (The red marked one) Thanks
  27. Can you share a picture of the highlighted cell in question?
  1. Load more activity
  • Create New...