-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7
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
maximum supported events #47
Comments
You are correct, the GUI only supports 8 events. The model however does not have this limitation. So you could pretty easily construct the data files with all the events you want using a combination of the GUI and excel... and you should be able to run as many events as you like (within the limits you mention). |
Good to know, thanks. Do you have a suggestion for how to do an analysis that considers all 18 of our scenarios? The total for most rows in the exlikes file will be greater than 1. |
you could assume the events are independent. exlikes stores the probabilities of a set of conditional events (which can be either mutually exclusive or independent). The definition of a probability space has to be less than one. See figure 3-5 for how this is calculated. note that CanFlood only supports a fairly simplistic assessment of defense failure |
Hi @cefect, I have combined the model files as suggested, and have now successfully run the risk L2 model without the res_per_asset box being checked. When I check the box, however, I get the following error: 'got negative extrapolation on '2002044': -912.55'. Do you know what this is referring to? I have checked asset 2002044 in the model files and don't see anything out of the ordinary. |
In addition to this, we will need to run 6 breach scenarios for 3 different events (total of 18 rasters) for our analysis. Is there a way to run all 18 rasters together? It seems that the tool is either limited to 8 (max inputs for the Conditional P tab), or until the total for each row in the exlikes row is greater than 1.
Please let me know if you'd like me to post this as a new issue.
Originally posted by @blhumphreys in #46 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: