Groundwater Modelling Advice: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Older edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Revision as of 11:49, 3 September 2025 view source Pavlina Monhartova (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 5,372 edits →Groundwater Linking to 1D (ESTRY or SWMM) ← Older edit		Latest revision as of 00:56, 4 December 2025 view source Tuflowduncan (talk \| contribs) Bureaucrats, Administrators 1,210 edits →Python Tag: Visual edit
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 22: === Python === The following python code, also available [https://gitlab.com/tuflow-user-group/tuflow/data-pre-processing/orifice_depth_discharge/-/blob/main/Orifice_Depth_Discharge_Curve.py here], can be used to generate depth vs discharge curves, which can then be input into a model with groundwater linking to 1D. <span style="color:#3776ab">'''import'''</span><span style="color:black"> math </span> Line 73: == How should peat soils be represented in a direct rainfall model? == If observed flow data is available, calibrating the model to these measurements would be the best approach. If not, using ~~ReFH2~~a lumped hydrology model as a comparison for flow estimates is recommended. Since peat is often saturated, infiltration rates may be low, but lateral water movement could still occur. In this case, using the interflow functionality in TUFLOW may help better represent water movement within the catchment. == How can a French drain (filter drain) be represented? == Line 132: Fine-tuning soil properties, hydraulic conductivity, and boundary conditions will improve interflow simulation accuracy. == Why does the groundwater lateral flux calculation include porosity~~, and what changes are planned~~? == Benchmarking tests have identified that the current sub surface flow equation in TUFLOW underestimates steady state discharge rates due to the inclusion of porosity. While the steady state water level gradient is correct, transient state simulations show discrepancies.