Ideas Lab

Rainfall Scaling

Published on 08/12/2011 at 11:31 by ian

New EA guidance on Climate Change (ref GEHO0711BTZU-E-E) requires that for small catchments (<5km2) rainfall should be scaled up by a percentage (see Table 4).

Please can you add a rainfall scaling factor to all rainfall-runoff boundaries to ease this process?
Thanks,
Ian.

Actions:

Multiple return periods in single ied/dat file

Published on 07/12/2011 at 13:26 by adamsk

What do people feel about having a return period for hydrological boundaries specified in the ief file? This would override the return period specifed in the ied/dat file.

This would save the need for creating multiple ied files where the only difference is the return period. Would also potentially reduce mistakes, e.g. if one or more failed to be changed.

You'd obviously need a separate ief file for each simulation (although this itself could ultimately also be managed at a higher level, e.g. run same model with 2, 5, 10, 20, ... return periods).

Ditto for storm duration.

Konrad

Comments:

» Tony_Green commented: Sounds dangerous - it is easy to create ied files for different events that can be checked later.

Actions:

» View full comments

-2

Node naming conventions that make sense?

Published on 29/09/2011 at 19:07 by PeterC

How about allowing names for nodes/units that are independent of the nodes/units they are attached to or that are attached to them. In the network chart the first column is "Label1", but it really allows no freedom for real labeling that is meaningful.
For instance, I might like to have a river section called "XS4", which goes to a culvert called "HwyCulvert". In the entry for "XS4", I would tell it to attach to "HwyCulvert", & in "HwyCulvert" I would tell it to attach to "XS4". At present the culvert takes the name of the river section in order to link to it, so is labelled "XS4", which is extremely unintuitive, especially when trying to keep track of more than a few nodes. Other node types would be treated in the same way.

Comments:

» fcebron commented: You have to add a junction between your section and your culvert if you want that they have different names.

In ...

Actions:

» View full comments

Making deactivated areas obvious in cross section dialogue box

Published on 31/08/2011 at 15:23 by PHA

On the same theme as the previous plots idea, could the lines of text in the cross section dialogue box be greyed out where they are deactivated, so you can see without even plotting it and without having to spot the 'left' 'right' markers as you scroll down a potentially long table of cross section data.

An alternative would be to have some little graphical thing in the dialogue box that indicates "there's something deactivated here".

Just SOMETHING a bit more obvious would be nice, given the important impact deactivation has on a model.

Actions:

Making deactivated areas obvious in cross section plots

Published on 31/08/2011 at 15:12 by PHA

Hi,

When picking up someone else's model and giving it a quick once over (or indeed an in depth review) when you open and plot a cross section it is not immedeately obvious that is has areas which have been deactivated. I know you can go into the edit series and switch on the lines (which mess up the vertical scaling some of the time), but if you flicking about the model that's a bit tedious every time you open a new section.

Given it's something that is somewhat fundamental to the makeup of the model could you make it such that:
a) the lines are set to be visible by default (with the correct vertical scaling!)
b) colour the deactivated bit a different colour or something
or
c) don't even display the deactivated areas unless you select them in the Edit Series box.

Or something else you think of would be fine I'm sure, but something that's there immediately when you open it and makes it ridiculously obvious that only that middle 6m of the 50m section data is active in your linked model (for example)...

Sister idea to follow!

Actions:

Convert River Section <-> MuskXSec -> MuskVPMC

Published on 24/08/2011 at 17:51 by Andrewc

It would be useful to be able to convert from River Cross Sections to Musk-XSec and vice versa (since most of the data is the same) - ideally for a block of sections.

The technique for converting Musk-XSec to Musk-VPMC is a bit more intricate, because ISIS would need to generate the tables on the fly - but this should be possible these days. This latter one is obviously not reversible.

These would be useful for flood forecasting or other rapid wide-scale applications where the user wants to use sparse cross sections to create and refine a routing model.

Actions:

Adding series to long section in different colours/styles

Published on 04/08/2011 at 16:22 by tmashby

After the first series, each subsequent one you add comes up as a green line. Would it be possible to have each new series added as a different colour or style?

Actions:

QT plot volumes

Published on 20/04/2011 at 12:03 by andy_g

when isis timeseries results are output using the flow-time option it would be useful to know the volume given by the area under the hydrograph, perhaps as a value in the corner of the hydrograph window.

Actions: