| Message/Author |
|
|
 Nico Batz (Nico) posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 - 05:38 pm
|
|
|
Hello Tom,
First, thanks for the help for the spin-up run but till now, I couldn´t do a complete run. I´m struggling with reducing computational time of the model, so that it gets done within a certain feasible time frame.
At the moment it takes at a DEM resolution of 15m, 60.452 cells, and a Q=50 (mean Q), 2 ˝ real hours to simulate 1 day.
I tried now to change variables which influence the speed as the erosion limit, resolution+study area size= number of cells, and the “min Q for depth calc”.
I have been able to reduce the same data set mentioned above to, real ˝ hour to simulate 1 day.
Are there any other options I can check to reduce computational time?
I would like to model at a 5m resolution and even on a bigger area.
I thought to use as a rule of thumb to simulate 2 days at the “real” minute, otherwise I will never be able to simulate 20 yr.
Do you think it is feasible?
Do you have any suggestion?
Thanks
Nico |
|
|
| Nico Batz (Nico) posted on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 05:41 pm
|
|
|
hello again,
sorry if i´m already posting an other question.
i tried today to see if the "flow distribution" parameter has an influence on the speed. and i found that it has.
the strange thing, is that the speed doubles from "flow distribution"=2 to the "flow distribution"=3. after the speed increases almost nothing.
also the output differs strongly between 2 and >2 but not between the four >2 outputs that i calculated.
if i understand right, through this parameter I set how many cells around the calculated one, will get water from the previous. right?
so my question:
is there a different formula if using the value 2 or >2 as flow distribution parameter?
or did i understand something wrong with this parameter?
thanks
Nico |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
