tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1675184707067447729.post3956620640964435341..comments2023-07-12T07:12:04.697-07:00Comments on The RAS Solution: Deleting Portions of HEC-RAS Cross Sections QuicklyChris G.http://www.blogger.com/profile/00354834185663924786noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1675184707067447729.post-18131624791711315742019-12-18T10:05:48.537-08:002019-12-18T10:05:48.537-08:00Does this method work in HEC-RAS version 5.0.6? I ...Does this method work in HEC-RAS version 5.0.6? I inherited an old model from 2014 with long cross sections that capture the floodplain (originally just a 1D model). I now want to trim the georeferenced cross sections since we have terrain to model the floodplain in 2D. It will be a 1D-2D combined model.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18234981059760824533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1675184707067447729.post-50691375145599650502014-08-06T10:36:50.964-07:002014-08-06T10:36:50.964-07:00I think, over time, as people become more and more...I think, over time, as people become more and more comfortable with 2D modeling in RAS, junctions will be a popular place to replace with 2D areas. However, cutting cross sections at a junction and running in 1D will probably always be more efficient, both in constructing the model and in computation time. Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00354834185663924786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1675184707067447729.post-54427476083141123182014-08-06T08:13:35.864-07:002014-08-06T08:13:35.864-07:00Glad to hear!
In the past I have struggled with de...Glad to hear!<br />In the past I have struggled with deciding whether or not a poorly defined channel should even be included (2D as overbank area vs. 2D area encompassing entire channel plus overbanks). It seems particularly advantageous to use a 2D area at a perpendicular confluence to avoid tricky cross sections and junctions. <br />Is there a reason this should be avoided? Tim Bedfordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1675184707067447729.post-15834743324818907972014-07-29T13:26:48.840-07:002014-07-29T13:26:48.840-07:00Yes! It would be better to use the high point for...Yes! It would be better to use the high point for the new cross section end point. But in theory, 2D areas do not need to be lower than the connecting lateral structure. A lateral structure in RAS could simply be a natural ground delineated boundary between the main channel and the overbank. However, things seem to work better when the boundary between the two is elevated (i.e. levee or natural high ground). Thanks Tim for catching that!Chris G.https://www.blogger.com/profile/00354834185663924786noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1675184707067447729.post-19900080193496470402014-07-29T12:03:20.536-07:002014-07-29T12:03:20.536-07:00Hey Great post! I have a quick question though. Si...Hey Great post! I have a quick question though. Since 2D areas must be lower in elevation than the lateral structure they are connected to would it be better to have edited your channel cross section to the highest point (location of the ineffective flow area)? <br />Tim Bedfordnoreply@blogger.com