TUFLOW Version Backward Compatibility: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Chris Huxley (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| (49 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
=Backward Compatibility Change Register=
'''<font color="red">For changes in defaults post the 2017-09 build, see Chapter 18 of the <u>[https://docs.tuflow.com/classic-hpc/manual/latest/ TUFLOW Manual]</u>.'''</font>
{|class="wikitable"
|- ▼
|colspan="3"|'''2017-09-XX Builds'''
|-
| New SX boundaries defaults.
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE
|-
| XF files are now being processed for boundaries.
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2017</tt> or use <font color="blue"><tt>XF Files Boundaries</tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>OFF</tt> if similar results are required to the 2016-03-AE release.<br>
|-
|Regions in 2d_bc layers now applied as regions (previously only cell over region centroid selected).
|No backward compatible workaround provided.<br>
|-
|Material IL and CL now applied to gridded rainfall (previously not applied).
|No backward compatible workaround provided.
|-
|SA regions now always select a 2D cell even if there are no cell centres falling within the region (previously a SA region would not select any cell if no cell centres fell within the region).
|No backward compatible workaround provided.<br>
|-
|If using “<font color="blue"><tt>Reveal 1D Nodes</tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==</tt></font><tt> ON</tt>”, “<font color="blue"><tt>Time Series Output Interval</tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==</tt></font> ” must be specified.
|No backward compatible workaround provided.<br>
|-
|-
|colspan="3"|'''2016-03-XX Builds'''
Line 16 ⟶ 45:
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Layered FLC Default Approach </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>CUMULATE</tt> or use <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2016</tt> if similar results are required to the 2013-12-AC release.<br>
|-
| The <font color="blue">SX Flow Distribution Cutoff Depth</font> has been raised to 0.
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2016</tt> or use <font color="blue"><tt>SX Flow Distribution Cutoff Depth </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>0.0</tt> if similar results are required to the 2013-12-AC release.<br>
|-
Line 22 ⟶ 51:
|Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2016</tt> if similar results are required to the 2013-12-AC release.<br>
|-
|A new ERROR message has been added to cross-check the 1D timestep is a multiple of the timestep for all 2D domains
|Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2016</tt> if similar results are required to the 2013-12-AC release.<br>
|-
|WARNING 2460 has been escalated to an ERROR and stricter command line syntax rules have been introduced ("=" will now return an ERROR message if TUFLOW is expecting "<font color="red"><tt>==</tt></font>")
|Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2016</tt> if similar results are required to the 2013-12-AC release.<br>
▲|-
▲| rowspan=1|2016-03-AC
▲| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2016</tt> if similar results are required to the 2013-12-AC release.<br>
|-
| rowspan=1|2016-03-AD
| The treatment of the eddy viscosity term in the GPU Solver has been enhanced with slightly improved results in areas of rapidly changing velocity patterns.
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>GPU Viscosity Method </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>Method A</tt> or use <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2016</tt> to achieve the same results as Build
|-
Line 45 ⟶ 69:
| rowspan=1|2013-12-AA
| New default settings – see <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==</tt></font><tt> PRE 2013-12</
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2013-12</tt> if similar results are required to the 2012-05 release.
|-
Line 51 ⟶ 75:
| rowspan=1|2013-12-AC
| The default setting for <font color="blue">Link 2D2D Approach</font> has changed.
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Link 2D2D Approach </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>METHOD B</
|-
Line 58 ⟶ 82:
| rowspan=2| 2012-05-AA
| New default settings – see <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2012-05</
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2012-05</tt> if similar results are required to the 2011-09 or 2010-10 releases.
|-
| The approach to the sizing of automatic manholes and the application of losses has been enhanced.
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Manhole Approach </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>Method A</
|-
Line 81 ⟶ 105:
| No workaround. Use the same platform (w32 or w64) for all simulations. Use <font color="blue">Model Platform</font> to force which platform should be used.
|-
| New default settings – see <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> PRE 2010-10</
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2010-10</tt> if similar results are required to the 2008-08 or 2009 07 releases.
|-
Line 95 ⟶ 119:
| rowspan=1| 2008-08-AC
| The default setting for <font color="blue"><u>Shallow Depth Stability Factor</u></font> has changed.
| Set <font color="blue"><tt>Shallow Depth Stability Factor </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
|-
Line 101 ⟶ 125:
|-
| Uses a new set of defaults for a number of commands (see <font color="blue">Defaults</font> ).
| The new defaults produce slightly different results, and very slight differences also occur between the three versions offered. For established models run using the 2007-07-XX builds, use <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2008-08</tt> to use the default settings used by the 2007-07-XX builds. Testing of a range of models has shown zero change in results if <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> PRE 2008-08</
|-
| The method for interpolating n values where the 2D Manning’s n varies with depth has been enhanced from a linear interpolation of the M (1/n) value to a spline interpolation of the n value. See <font color="blue"><u>Bed Resistance Depth Interpolation</u></font>.
Line 131 ⟶ 155:
| The new defaults may produce slightly different results. For established models run using the 2006-06-XX builds, use <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt>PRE 2007-07-AA</tt> to use the default settings used by the 2006-06-XX builds. Each of the new default settings and their affects are discussed in the rows below.
|-
| Change <font color="blue"><tt>Zero Material Values to One </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| Will not cause different results if a <font color="blue"><tt>Set Mat </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> 1</tt> is specified before other material settings in the .tgc file, or if every cell has been assigned a material value.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Inside Region </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> Method B</
| Testing thus far has not shown any difference between the two methods (other than the substantial gains in processing time of polygons).
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Line Cell Selection </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> Method D</
| May change results slightly, but improved stability and a smoother water levels along HX lines result.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>VG Z Adjustment </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> MAX ZC</
| May change results slightly, but stability should be significantly enhanced in some situations.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Bed Resistance Cell Sides </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| Will influence results, usually slightly, but more pronounced where there are sudden changes in Manning’s n values such as in the urban environment.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Culvert Flow </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> Method D</
<font color="blue"><tt>Culvert Critical H/D </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| The most significant influences are the selection of upstream or downstream controlled regimes depending on the H/D ratio, and the bug fix relating to Regime E if <font color="blue"><tt>Structure Losses </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
|-
| Changed the setting of the default width (if eN1 < 0.001) of automatic weirs over R and C channels (i.e. RW and CW) to be the diameter/width multiplied by the number of culverts (previously, the width was not multiplied by the number of culverts).
Line 157 ⟶ 181:
|-
| Bug fix that incorrectly set the water levels on dried VG cells (only applies to simulations with source inflows, e.g. SA or RF, somewhere within in the model).
| May cause slight changes in results. Backward compatibility provided if <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> PRE 2007-07-AA</
|-
| Fixed bug that did not correctly apply the reduction in conveyance for a FC BD (bridge deck) of FD (floating deck) cell using the 2d_fc Mannings_n attribute.
Line 168 ⟶ 192:
|-
| Uses a new set of defaults for a number of commands.
| The new defaults will produce different results. For established models run using the 2005-05-XX builds, use <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> PRE 2006-06-AA</
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Cell Wet/Dry Depth </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> 0.002</
| The most pronounced effect of the shallower wet/dry depths is likely to occur in areas that are still filling at the flood peak, such as behind a levee that is only just overtopped. The shallower wet/dry depths provides a greater flow depth for a longer period over the levee.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Adjust Head at ESTRY Interface </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| Usually does not have a major influence on results except where very high velocities occur.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Boundary Cell Selection </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> Method C</
| May select slightly different cells along boundary/link lines. This may cause a difference where the line is along the top of levee, possibly creating a “hole” in embankment.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Viscosity Formulation </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| Can have a significant effect where the viscosity term is influential. This occurs where the friction term is less dominant (i.e. low Manning’s n and/or deeper water such as the lower, tidal, reaches of rivers).
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Structure Losses </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| Can have a significant affect in the vicinity of structures within a 1D network and for culvert networks. Does not affect 1D structures linked to a 2D domain or at the structure ends not connected to another 1D channel.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Storage Above Structure Obvert (%) </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| Usually negligible effect unless the model storage is predominantly within 1D closed sections (i.e. B, C and R channels). The 1D domain is likely to be more sensitive to instabilities due to the much smaller storage above the top of the closed sections, therefore, a smaller 1D timestep may be required and/or the Storage Above Structure Obvert (%) increased.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Depth Limit Factor </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| No effect as previously the model would have become “unstable” as the trigger for an instability was the top of the channel/node.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Culvert Flow </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> Method C</
| Usually only minor effects plus improved stability.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Culvert Add Dynamic Head </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
| Minor influence.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Bridge Flow </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> Method B</
| Negligible influence plus improved stability. However, note the different treatment of energy losses once the bridge deck obvert/soffit is submerged if a BG or LC table is specified.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>WLL Approach </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> Method B</
| Only affects the presentation of results. Note, that Method A is no longer recommended or supported.
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Apply All Inverts </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>==
Does not affect hydraulic calculations, however, if a Blank, B or W channel is now lowered/raised because the inverts are now used, this will affect results/stability - see note at end of Apply All Inverts).
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Conveyance Calculation </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> ALL PARALLEL</
| Will affect results as ALL PARALLEL can be around 10% more “slippery” than CHANGE IN RESISTANCE. For calibrated or established models developed using build prior to Build 2006-06-AA , recommend setting to CHANGE IN RESISTANCE
|-
| <font color="blue"><tt>Flow Calculation </tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font><tt> Method B</
| Negligible effect.
|-
|'''Builds prior to 2006-06-XX'''
| Contact
|
|}
=Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)=
== Why are model results developed in an older release different to a newer release? ==
If comparing a Classic model with HPC, also check the <u>[[HPC_FAQ#Will_TUFLOW_HPC_and_TUFLOW_Classic_results_match.3F | Will TUFLOW HPC and TUFLOW Classic results match?]]</u> page in addition to this answer. <br>
In addition to the above, there are reasons why model results would be different between different TUFLOW releases, whether it is the Classic or HPC solver as follows:
* General improvements and fine-tuning of the solution scheme, especially for the more complex hydraulic physical terms and situations such as: sub-grid turbulence representation; treatment of shocks (e.g. hydraulic jumps); and transitioning between sub-critical and super-critical flow on steep slopes.
* Some new functionality can cause a significant change in results. For example:
** Sub-Grid Sampling (SGS) applied to an existing model that used a too coarse cell resolution in high flow areas of highly variable topography (relative to the 2D cell size). SGS will greatly improve the model's ability to convey water accurately in these situations with vastly improved results.
** New default sub-grid turbulence scheme in the 2020 release of TUFLOW HPC that is cell size independent and allows modellers to use cell sizes much smaller than the flow depth across all scales from flume to large rivers. For more information on differences between Smagorinsky scheme (HPC releases up to 2020) and the new Wu turbulence scheme (2020 onwards) see <u>[[HPC_FAQ#With_Wu_turbulence_scheme_being_the_new_default.2C_are_old_models_using_Smagorinsky_wrong.3F | here]]</u>.
* Changes to the default settings and values, e.g.:
**different default eddy viscosity formulation and/or coefficients,
**improved data pre-processing approaches such as sampling materials on cell mid-sides instead of cell centres,
** and many others.
** For backward compatibility the <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults</tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font> command is available to run old models on new releases to replicate past results (note, sometimes full backward compatibility cannot be catered for due to different code compiler and updates that can't be reverted, especially for several releases earlier).
* New features that use GIS attributes previously reserved (i.e. unused). If these attributes were not populated with the recommended “reserved” value (usually 0 or blank), then they can cause unpredictable results in later releases.
* Bug fixes noting that most bug fixes are input/output related and rarely affect the model's hydraulic calculations.
* Change in timestepping can also produce a small change in results. HPC uses the Runge-Kutta 4th order integrator, which is usually fairly insensitive to time step provided the model is running stably. However when a region is filled by flow that only just overtops an embankment, a 10 mm difference in water levels upstream of the embankment can create a much larger difference in levels downstream. Hence small differences in time-stepping (along with many other aspects of model setup) can trigger local differences in model results.
* Model orientation (if changed) could also mean slight change in results. This is mostly given by interpolating values from different calculation points. Every cell has nine calculation points. Based on the model origin, all or most of the calculation points would have different topography elevation sampled, which translates to slightly different results.
* If using 1D channel, possibly different cells have been selected as HX boundary and might have different elevations. This can be reviewed in <u>[[Check_Files_1d_to_2d_bc | 1d_to_2d check file]]</u>.
Generally, there should not be substantial differences as the fundamental equations being solved are unchanged and TUFLOW Classic and HPC solvers have always solved all the physical terms using a 2nd order spatial approach. The one exception is the turbulence (eddy viscosity) representation, which is the most complex and challenging to solve of all the physical terms (many 2D schemes simply omit this term). If significant differences (>10% of depth change across the whole model) are observed then it’s most likely due to the first four dot points above. To identify in which release(s) the significant changes occurred, the model can be run with the latest build and for past releases. The changes for each release are documented in their release notes. Past releases and release notes are all available [https://www.tuflow.com/downloads/tuflow-classichpc-archive/. here]. Once the exact release where the changes occurred is tracked down, individual features can be turned off to narrow down the cause.<br>
The recommendation is usually for new or reworked models to use the newest build to take advantage of the latest features and enhancements, some level of calibration might be required for reworked models. The new TUFLOW executable is not different from the previous ones in the meaning that any existing model should be re-calibrated if there are available calibration data. However, particularly if a model is already calibrated, using prior builds of TUFLOW or winding back default settings using <font color="blue"><tt>Defaults</tt></font> <font color="red"><tt>== </tt></font> command is considered reasonable for established models that are to be used for minor tasks and an update of the model would not be cost effective.<br>
<br>
{{Tips Navigation
|uplink=[[TUFLOW_Modelling_Guidance | Back to TUFLOW Modelling Guidance]]
| |||