-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Set Up Boundary Conditions #6
Comments
I accessed information on boundary conditions in RAS HDF output as follows:
In the The model was set up to aggregate boundary conditions that were associated with the same cell/face in RAS. These were set up so that if there were more than 3 EFDC boundary conditions were coming into a single cell, the boundary would be distributed over 2 RAS cells. Otherwise, the boundary conditions were associated with 1 RAS cell. However, while exploring boundary conditions to set up dummy inputs, I found that certain @jrutyna looked at the RAS model and found that the boundary conditions do not (visually) appear to be configured this way. He also ran a test where he added a boundary condition line and found that it only corresponded to a single cell/face, as expected. I then checked in with Nick, and he said he would do some troubleshooting to (a) make sure that boundary flows are not being added multiple times and (b) see if it is possible correct the boundary condition / face index relationship in the RAS output. If we cannot resolve this, we will need to create a lookup table ourselves that designate which face(s) are associated with each boundary condition. |
@sjordan29, thanks for that detailed report, and for arranging for @jrutyna & @McGrupp10 (Nick) to follow up! @McGrupp10, let us know what you find with this RAS2D Boundary Condition issue! |
@jrutyna did some digging and was able to re-configure the boundary conditions. He didn't find a general rule on which BCs were causing issues, but did find the following (correct me if I'm wrong on these, @jrutyna):
Next steps for @sjordan29:
|
@sjordan29, thanks for that update! |
@aufdenkampe, I provided a work around for the issue to get us moving forward. The "problem" boundary condition lines with either 2 cell external faces or 1 cell external face were shorten until the boundary condition was only associated with 1 external face. Unfortunately, this will not match exactly with the EFDC model, but I think it will be close enough--we will need to look at the side-by-side comparison to see if we like this work around. If we want to solve this issue completely so a future user does not encounter it for another application, I see three paths forward:
@aufdenkampe and @sjordan29 please let me know what you think about the proposed paths forward. |
A bug report was emailed to the HEC-RAS developers. The following is a copy of the email: I am reporting the following bug to the HEC-RAS development team. Please let me know if you need additional information to troubleshoot the issue I outlined below:
|
Based on the availability of E. Coli data, @jrutyna decided that we should provide a comparison from 5/29/2010 00:00 to 7/06/2010 00:00, which has good data coverage and several pulses of high upstream E. Coli concentrations: Updated boundary conditions are saved under |
@jrutyna, I noticed in the Ohio River example notebook, that not all boundary lines have e. coli values for all timesteps. See Code Block 64, which prints the RAS2D timeseries name, associated face index, and number of times that contain data for that timeseries. You'll see certain timeseries (e.g., Is this expected? Will we need to interpolate data, or is a "no data" value interpreted as 0 in EFDC? |
@jrutyna confirmed that if there is no data, the value should default to 0. |
Looking at each boundary condition timeseries, it looks like |
@jrutyna confirmed that the calculation is being performed correctly based on the information we have from the qser and dser files. |
Initial boundary condition set-up is complete. Closing this issue - future work refactoring boundary conditions and expanding capabilities should be tracked in #17 or other future issues. |
We are going to compare E. Coli concentrations from an EFDC model to the output from our RAS2D water quality model. This will involve the following steps:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: