<html><head>
</head>
<body bidimailui-charset-is-forced="true" style="direction: ltr;"><div>Hello</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Cantarell; font-size: 14.666667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">I made two better digital elevation models for my tests, here attached.</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Cantarell; font-size: 14.666667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">There are two designs, each with a pond about 1 metre deep, the same position on the slope, and two ditches reaching the pond.</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Cantarell; font-size: 14.666667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">One design has a pond with a surface area of 63m², and the other has a surface area of 131m², with a depth of about 1 metre, with a volume of 52m³ and 118m³, respectively.</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Cantarell; font-size: 14.666667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">I expect that having the same slope and ditches upstream, the two ponds will be filled with a similar volume of water.</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Cantarell; font-size: 14.666667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Seen infil_rast for make waterproof the ponds doesn't run, <span style="font-size: 14.666667px;">I tried using flow_control, and it work.</span></div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Cantarell; font-size: 14.666667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;"><span style="font-weight: 400;">And I tried with </span><b>hmax=1</b></div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext; caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Cantarell; font-size: 14.666667px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.4); -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;">Here the "script" (after import geotiff attached)</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.lake --overwrite elevation=dem_pondB water_level=480.7 lake=pondB coordinates=687064.2576117209,4910526.453118301</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">#results 118m³ 131m²</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.lake --overwrite elevation=dem_pondA water_level=480.9 lake=pondA coordinates=687064.2576117209,4910526.453118301</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">#results 52m³ 63m²</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.mapcalc expression="flow_control_pondA = if(pondA,0)" --overwrite</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.mapcalc expression="flow_control_pondB = if(pondB,0)" --overwrite</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.slope.aspect --overwrite elevation=dem_pondB dx=dx_pondB dy=dy_pondB</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.slope.aspect --overwrite elevation=dem_pondA dx=dx_pondA dy=dy_pondA</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.mask raster=dem_pondA</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.sim.water --overwrite -t elevation=dem_pondB dx=dx_pondB dy=dy_pondB rain_value=40 infil_value=15 man=manning flow_control=flow_control_pondB hmax=1 depth=water_depth_pondB_40x30mm discharge=discharge_pondB_40x30mm niterations=30 output_step=5 random_seed=42 nprocs=8</div><div style="unicode-bidi: plaintext;">r.sim.water --overwrite -t elevation=dem_pondA dx=dx_pondA dy=dy_pondA rain_value=40 infil_value=15 man=manning flow_control=flow_control_pondA hmax=1 depth=water_depth_pondA_40x30mm discharge=discharge_pondA_40x30mm niterations=30 output_step=5 random_seed=42 nprocs=8</div></blockquote><div>The results are:</div><div>- water_depth approximately 0.38 meters for pondB (about 49m³) , 0.61 meters for pondA (about 32m³)</div><div>- discharge of the watershed: pondB 48m³, pondA 51m³</div><div>But I am not sure that the spread of water in the slope, and especially in the ditches, is correct in this way, with hmax=1.</div><div><br></div><div>Openfluid I find difficult to install, also for small watersheds with the design of ditches, possibly not topologically connected.</div><div><br></div><div>Could this route, with <b>hmax=depth of the pond</b>, be correct?</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div><span><pre>-- <br></pre><pre>--
Perito agrario Enrico Gabrielli
progetto F.A.R.M. www.farm-agroecologia.it
Tessera n. 633 Collegio Periti agrari prov. Di Modena
Biblioteca agricoltura: https://www.zotero.org/groups/aplomb/
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/bonushenricus
</pre></span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Il giorno ven, 04/08/2023 alle 08.26 +0200, bonushenricus ha scritto:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>Thanks Micha</div><div>What a mistake with Manning's coefficient! I took off a zero!</div><div>For infil: the soil is sandy. The 24.1 mm/h is taken from the soil map with published regional data. There are two reference sites in the area of soil delineation: 48% sand and 22% clay: 7.7 mm/h; 52% sand, 14% clay: 24.1 mm/h. If I can, I will go and measure on the ground. But for now, maybe 15 might be good.</div><div>The result, however, still doesn't convince me.</div><div>If I try the simulation on "invaso6", with the same parameters as "invaso2", it ends after 10 minutes with a result of 30 cm.</div><div><span></span></div><div><br></div><div>Il giorno mer, 02/08/2023 alle 00.45 +0300, Micha Silver ha scritto:</div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><p><font size="4">Hello Enrico:</font></p><p><font size="4"><br></font></p><p><font size="4">Anna knows this subject better than I do, but I noticed a few problems with your command, so here are some comments that might help to get a better result.</font></p><p><font size="4"><br></font></p><p><font size="4">First, your man_value is way too high. You probably want something like 0.03</font></p><p><font size="4">Second, you are using the '-t' flag but no `output_step`, If you add output_step of a few minutes, then you should get multiple output rasters at each time step.</font></p><p><font size="4">Third, you have 40 mm/hr rain_rate and 24.1 mm/hr infiltration rate. Is that correct? That means that 60% of the rain is infiltrating throughout the 30 minute storm. This might happen in very dry and sandy soil. Is that your situation?</font></p><p><font size="4"><br></font></p><p><font size="4">Here's what I tried (changing the above 3 parameters):<br></font></p><p><font size="4"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;"></span></font><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;"><br></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;">r.external ./reservoir_farm_granello/dem_invaso2.tif output=dem_2</span><br></span></p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;">g.region -ap rast=dem_2</span><br></span></p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;">r.slope.aspect elevation=dem_2 dx=dx_2 dy=dy_2</span><br></span></p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;">r.sim.water -t elevation=dem_2 dx=dx_2 dy=dy_2 rain_value=40 infil_value=15 man_value=0.0368 depth=water_de</span>pth_invaso2_40x30mm discharge=discharge_invaso2_40x30mm niterations=30 output_step=5 random_seed=42 nprocs=8 --overwrite<br></span></p><p><br></p><p><font size="4"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;">This resulted in 5 depth (and 5 discharge) rasters. For example:</span></font></p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;"><br></span></span></p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;">r.univar water_depth_invaso2_40x30mm.05 </span><br> 100% <br> total null and non-null cells: 1197120 <br> total null cells: 667811 <br> <br> Of the non-null cells: <br> ---------------------- <br> n: 529309 <br> minimum: 4.25896e-05 <br> maximum: 0.313524 <br> range: 0.313481 <br> mean: 0.00323487 <br> mean of absolute values: 0.00323487 <br> standard deviation: 0.0125372 <br> variance: 0.000157182 <br> variation coefficient: 387.565 % <br> sum: 1712.24596255017 <br> micha@RMS:bonuschenricus$ r.univar water_depth_invaso2_40x30mm.25 <br> 100% <br> total null and non-null cells: 1197120 <br> total null cells: 667811 <br> <br> Of the non-null cells: <br> ---------------------- <br> n: 529309 <br> minimum: 4.25896e-05 <br> maximum: 0.406802 <br> range: 0.406759 <br> mean: 0.00358821 <br> mean of absolute values: 0.00358821 <br> standard deviation: 0.0176433 <br> variance: 0.000311286 <br> variation coefficient: 491.702 % <br> sum: 1899.27293131027<br></span></p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><br></span></p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="color:#000000;background-color:#ffffff;">r.univar discharge_invaso2_40x30mm.05 </span><br> 100% <br> total null and non-null cells: 1197120 <br> total null cells: 667811 <br> <br> Of the non-null cells: <br> ---------------------- <br> n: 529309 <br> minimum: 0 <br> maximum: 0.595495 <br> range: 0.595495 <br> mean: 0.000783053 <br> mean of absolute values: 0.000783053 <br> standard deviation: 0.0121067 <br> variance: 0.000146571 <br> variation coefficient: 1546.08 % <br> sum: 414.477138618156 <br> micha@RMS:bonuschenricus$ r.univar discharge_invaso2_40x30mm.30 <br> 100% <br> total null and non-null cells: 1197120 <br> total null cells: 667811 <br> <br> Of the non-null cells: <br> ---------------------- <br> n: 529309 <br> minimum: 0 <br> maximum: 0.595495 <br> range: 0.595495 <br> mean: 0.000857986 <br> mean of absolute values: 0.000857986 <br> standard deviation: 0.0125651 <br> variance: 0.000157882 <br> variation coefficient: 1464.49 % <br> sum: 454.13982509354<br> <br></span><span style="font-family:monospace"></span></p><p><br></p><p>Attached is the final depth map (after 30 minutes). You might try a longer run time (higher niternations)<br></p><p style="direction: ltr;">One other note: Your region resolution is 0.2 meters (from the original DEM) so each pixel is 0.04 sq meters. The sum of values of all non-null cells in the final depth map is about 1900 (from the r.univar result). So the total discharge should be about 76 m³. Does that sound reasonable?<br></p><p><br></p><p>HTH</p><p>Micha</p><p><span style="font-family:monospace"><br></span></p><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/08/2023 21:35, bonushenricus wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:09702a80919135ce02a8aa7167dd2402075fe377.camel@gmail.com" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div> <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></div><div>Thank you Anna.</div><div>I will try to attach the two geotiffs in a compressed folder, with the simplest example of a single ditch, for both reservoirs. EPSG:32632.</div><div>The ditch is not exactly the same for the two reservoirs, they change a little bit in the final part of the mouth of the reservoir, but it is very similar.</div><div>Sorry I didn't use a sample vector of points, I did it later with temporal.</div><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>r.slope.aspect <a href="mailto:elevation=dem_invaso2_fosso@granello" moz-do-not-send="true">elevation=dem_invaso2</a> dx=dx_invaso2 dy=dy_invaso2</div></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>r.sim.water -t elevation=dem_invaso2 dx=dx_invaso2 dy=dy_invaso2 rain_value=40 infil_value=24.1 man_value=0.368 depth=water_depth_invaso2_40x30mm discharge=discharge_invaso2_40x30mm niterations=30 --overwrite</div></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>r.slope.aspect<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:elevation=dem_invaso2_fosso@granello" style="color: rgb(46, 52, 54);" moz-do-not-send="true">elevation=dem_invaso6</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>dx=dx_invaso6 dy=dy_invaso6</div></blockquote><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>r.sim.water -t elevation=dem_invaso6 dx=dx_invaso6 dy=dy_invaso6 rain_value=40 infil_value=24.1 man_value=0.368 depth=water_depth_invaso6_40x30mm discharge=discharge_invaso6_40x30mm niterations=30 --overwrite</div></blockquote><div><span></span></div><div>Thank you very much</div><div>I am sure there is some mistake on my part!</div><div><br></div><pre>-- </pre><pre>-- </pre><pre>Perito agrario Enrico Gabrielli</pre><pre>progetto F.A.R.M. <a href="https://www.farm-agroecologia.it" moz-do-not-send="true">www.farm-agroecologia.it</a></pre><pre>Tessera n. 633 Collegio Periti agrari prov. Di Modena</pre><pre>Biblioteca agricoltura: <a href="https://www.zotero.org/groups/aplomb/" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.zotero.org/groups/aplomb/</a></pre><pre><a href="https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/bonushenricus" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/bonushenricus</a></pre><div><br></div><div>Il giorno mar, 01/08/2023 alle 13.17 -0400, Anna Petrášová ha scritto:</div><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div> <br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 10:23 AM bonushenricus <<a href="mailto:bonushenricus76@gmail.com" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bonushenricus76@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div> <br><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Thank you, Anna.</div><div>r.sim.water finishes the simulation not at the end of the rainfall event, in my case at 30 minutes, but at an earlier time. In my case, in the smaller reservoir at 16 minutes, in the case of the more extensive reservoir at 24 minutes. But the water keeps coming even after that. I imagined that the calculation ends when it reaches the steady state of the water blade.</div><div>But it's not so. Then I don't understand why it ends at 16 or 24 minutes. Doesn't the water continue to arrive after that? Shouldn't it increase?</div><div>I cannot understand it. In the reservoirs, the discharge is very low, as I expect. But if the discharge does not increase and the precipitation continues, I expect the water depth to rise again.</div><div>And it is not understandable that two reservoirs, one twice the volume of the other, contain the same depth of 30 cm at the end of the rainfall.</div><div>To understand how this works, I would apply waterproofing to the reservoirs. The ksat, or infil_value, is the only variable that can explain this: the larger reservoir loses more water.</div><div>If both reservoirs were waterproof, I would have removed this variable. Unfortunately r.sim.water infil=raster where I have marked value 0 in the reservoirs does not work. There is perhaps a bug that I have reported. So I haven't had a chance to test this.</div><div>I don't know how to do it; I can't trust the 30 cm as a value to calculate the water volume in the two reservoirs. I will have to use another model.</div><div>I will try to use a distributed model. Since I have the data in GRASS, I will try using the old geomhydas, hoping the modules will work in GRASS8, and then use the Mhydas models in OpenFluid. I have no other chance unless someone can help me find a solution.</div><div><span></span></div></div><div> <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Unfortunately I haven't had time to look at the reported issue. Perhaps you could share your data and provide exact commands and pictures, explaining very clearly what's wrong. </div><div> </div> <br><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div><span><pre>--
</pre><pre>--
Perito agrario Enrico Gabrielli
progetto F.A.R.M. <a href="http://www.farm-agroecologia.it" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">www.farm-agroecologia.it</a>
Tessera n. 633 Collegio Periti agrari prov. Di Modena
Biblioteca agricoltura: <a href="https://www.zotero.org/groups/aplomb/" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.zotero.org/groups/aplomb/</a>
<a href="https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/bonushenricus" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/bonushenricus</a>
</pre></span></div><div><br></div><div>Il giorno mar, 01/08/2023 alle 09.23 -0400, Anna Petrášová ha scritto:</div> <br><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div> <br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:42 PM bonushenricus <<a href="mailto:bonushenricus76@gmail.com" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">bonushenricus76@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div> <br><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div>Hi Anna</div><div>I too immediately thought it was enough to compute it for the final step of the simulation,</div><div>but I noticed that the same slope, same ditches, same rainfall, for two reservoirs at the same location, same length along a contour, but different width and depth, at the final step of the simulation the water depth was always 30 cm, I went to read the article </div><div style="line-height:1.35;margin-left:2em"><div>Mitasova, Helena, Chris Thaxton, Jaroslav Hofierka, Richard McLaughlin, Amber Moore, e Lubos Mitas. «Path Sampling Method for Modeling Overland Water Flow, Sediment Transport, and Short Term Terrain Evolution in Open Source GIS». In <i>Developments in Water Science</i>, 55:1479–90. Elsevier, 2004. <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5648(04)80159-X" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-5648(04)80159-X</a></div><div>where I read the Saint-Venant equation. I am an agricultural technician and geographer unfortunately ignorant of hydrological calculations and serious mathematics, and I understood, looking at the equation, that the water depth is the depth of overland flow = rainfall exces - water flow.</div><div>So the final 30 cm should not be understood as accumulated water, but as the blade of water that was added at that precise moment.</div><div>Isn't my interpretation right?</div></div></div><div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, it should be actual water depth. I didn't understand the discrepancy you are describing?<br></div> <br><blockquote type="cite" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex; border-left:2px #729fcf solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div style="line-height:1.35;margin-left:2em"> <span title="url_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fzotero.org%3A2&rft_id=urn%3Aisbn%3A978-0-444-51840-8&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Abook&rft.genre=bookitem&rft.atitle=Path%20sampling%20method%20for%20modeling%20overland%20water%20flow%2C%20sediment%20transport%2C%20and%20short%20term%20terrain%20evolution%20in%20Open%20Source%20GIS&rft.publisher=Elsevier&rft.aufirst=Helena&rft.aulast=Mitasova&rft.au=Helena%20Mitasova&rft.au=Chris%20Thaxton&rft.au=Jaroslav%20Hofierka&rft.au=Richard%20McLaughlin&rft.au=Amber%20Moore&rft.au=Lubos%20Mitas&rft.date=2004&rft.pages=1479-1490&rft.spage=1479&rft.epage=1490&rft.isbn=978-0-444-51840-8&rft.language=en"></span></div><div><span></span></div></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></body></html>