Forum Replies Created
September 16, 2019 at 1:02 pm in reply to: Directly/indirectly connected impervious fractions in RORB CMD #1515
The command line version of RORB is not currently set up to handle the directly and indirectly connected impervious fractions. This functionality is available via the Windows interface only.
Yes – RORB does not calculate baseflow. There are two methods for handling this:
1 – You separate out the baseflow from the gauge hydrograph before you copy it into the storm file. That way you are comparing gauged and modelled surface runoff only.
2 – You separate out the baseflow from the gauge hydrograph, then add this baseflow hydrograph into the RORB catchment file using an inflow. Then you will be comparing gauged and modelled total flow.
The first method is generally the easiest.
We’re still working on finalising the new version, but at this stage I anticipate public release by October 26th.
Thanks for your query. There are several ways to set up a special storage in RORB. Typically, this is best done using an SQ table determined externally using a simple hydraulic calculation or a hydraulic model such as HEC-RAS. Alternatively, you can use the weir/pipe formulation within RORB to simulate the behaviour of various types of outlets.
In regards to a pump, you would need to incorporate this into an SQ table which was prepared externally.
Hope this helps.
I think this is a question for ESRI as the developers of ArcGIS rather than us. I’m sure it is possible to do this, but unfortunately can’t advise of the details. This web page might give you some clues to start thinking about: http://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/10.3/guide-books/python-addins/sharing-and-installing-add-ins.htm
There is a bug with the duration variable loss factors in the current public release. We are currently finalising an updated version which addresses these features along with a number of additional enhancements. I’m hoping this will be available in the next few weeks. In the meantime, if you urgently need to use duration variable loss factors please shoot me an email at email@example.com and I will provide a hot-fixed version with this bug fixed.
Thanks for your question. There are two options to achieve the result you are after.
One way would be to select ‘User Defined’ rather than ‘ARR2016’ under IFD Data Type in the Run Specification dialogue box. You will then need to copy and paste your design rainfall data in, but will also be able to provide single temporal patterns for each duration, or a set of Monte Carlo temporal patterns. The MC temporal patterns for this option use the file format similar to the file Melbourne_mc.pat which is available in the sample data folder when you install RORBwin.
The other alternative is simply to use the ARR2016 IFD, but manually edit the ARR Data Hub _increments.csv file to replace the Data Hub temporal patterns with the GSDM temporal patterns. This is probably the more straightforward option.
Hope this helps.
- This reply was modified 3 years, 4 months ago by DavidStephens.
Hi Dave – we don’t currently have any plans to run this session in the short term. Having said that, there appears to be some demand for this training so we may consider running it again towards the end of this year. If we do so, it will be advertised on this forum, so stay tuned.
Just to close this out – we have produced an updated version of RORB_cmd.exe which addresses this bug. This will be released as part of the next RORB version, hopefully in July. Please contact me directly at firstname.lastname@example.org if you need to access to this bug fix in the short term.
Thanks for your question JS. There is currently no option available in the RORB_CMD.exe to produce the csv files which can be output using the full Windows version. This is something we may add in at some future stage, but this won’t be available in the short term.
The code 11 approach that you have described above should work – you have in fact identified a bug in the RORB_CMD.exe. We will have a look into fixing this as a priority, but it would assist if you could please drop me an email at email@example.com and send me a copy of your catchment file, a storm file and a RORB_CMD.exe parameter file so that we can fully debug the issue.
Note that we are also currently working on a new version which will include pre-burst rainfall depths and temporal patterns, along with a number of other enhancements. I’m hoping this will be out in July.
Great to hear that you got there in the end! No inconvenience at all – this is exactly why we have the forum. Let us know if any other issues pop up.April 16, 2018 at 8:19 am in reply to: Minor bug when deselecting ‘Use regional losses’ – and workaround #980
Thanks Tony. We’ll note this one down and address it as part of the next release.
Hi Tim – thanks for this great question. Yes, this approach should work as you are expecting. The magnitude of the outflow hydrograph can be defined using either a formula or table approach.
Thanks for reporting this. This is a bug that was unfortunately introduced with the last version. You should be able to get around it by performing a “Separate catchment and existing storm file” run where the storm file has been created from within a ARR2016 batch run.
We’ll address the issue as part of the current enhancements project we’re working on, so hopefully there will be a new version out mid-year with the bug fixed.
Unfortunately I think you have discovered a bug, JS. I’m not sure we ever tested the batch output file with so many hydrographs. This is something we will log and address as part of our next build, but it will be some time (several months I suspect) before we release the next version.
In the meantime, you can at least get the results from the individual run output files. The other workaround would be to create two catchment files, which are the same except for the number of print locations. If you keep these to less than 250 in each catchment file, you could then run the model twice and generate two batch output files which combined contain all the peaks.