open TELEMAC-MASCARET The mathematically superior suite of solvers

Hi Sara,

Thanks for the clarification.

I have tidal flats in my domain. To confirm, your solution is working for the PSI LIPS scheme (SCHEME FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 5 and SCHEME OPTION FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 4) which is what I'm using.

Regards,

Hello Sara,

I have gone through above mentioned post. I have one question in my mind that

Is it now possible to carry out dumping of dredged material simulation through Telemac2d+Gaia ? i.e. Whether "Water discharge at source" from Telemac2d is considered in combination with "Suspended sediment concentration at source" in Gaia?

Thanks in advance.

Mandar

Dear Mandar,

This is what I'm using the feature for. Supplying sources through the T2D SOURCES FILE and applying the source sediment concentrations through the GAIA keyword 'SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS CONCENTRATION VALUES AT THE SOURCES'.

Regards,
Toby

Hi Toby,
Please can you share your *. CAS file for GAIA and T2D ?

Thanks
Ralph

Hello Mandar,

yes, but you need to modify the subroutine telemac2d.F, as shown in previous post. If you use NERD scheme, listing will be wrong, one more fix is necessary.
Hope to push all this in the next release.

Best regards,
Sara

Thanks Toby & Sara. I will do the necessary changes in telemac2d.F for the same.

Regards
Mandar

Hello,

I am just following this up. I had a quick look at the log change and it does not seem that this has been fully implemented yet?

I agree with Toby, this feature should be prioritized.

Kind regards
PL

Hello again,

After some tests with v8.3.1 (will install 8.4.0 also) we can see that there is a discrepancy between expected inflow of suspended sediment mass and what is reported in the listing, with approx 60% less mass in a simple set-up with constant water inflow at sources and constant concentration. A more complex set-up with hydrograph show that the discrepancy is likely non-linear and vary with inflow discharge at sources.

We use:
SCHEME FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 4;4
SCHEME OPTION FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 4;4

Sara, you mentionned that you did get good results on a simple test case so I was expecting it to work rather well, but it is not really the case for us.

It would be nice to have feedback from other users on this matter!

Thanks in advance
PL

Hello Pierre-Louis,

Do you also see this issue in TELEMAC-2D as other users?
Have you tried:
SCHEME FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 5;5
SCHEME OPTION FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 4;4
rather than
SCHEME FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 4;4?
I think it should be the same.

Have you tried NERD schemes?
SCHEME FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 14;14
SCHEME OPTION FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 1;1
or
SCHEME FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 13;13
SCHEME OPTION FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 1;1
Do you have the same behaviour?

There may be the same issue in 2D as for culverts with LIPS, see:
opentelemac.org/index.php/kunena/16-tele...ssues?start=10#43427

Unfortunately Sara will not be able to answer you, as she is out of the office for several months.

Chi-Tuan

So I had previously implemented this fix in T2D with:

SCHEME FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 5
SCHEME OPTION FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 4

However, I never checked the mass balance to confirm whether I was experiencing the same issue described by Pierre-Louis. As Chi-Tuan mentioned, I did however have strange issues with tracer conservation using the same scheme with culverts which could somehow be related.

According to Sara the fix will not work with SCHEME FOR ADVECTION OF SUSPENDED SEDIMENTS = 13 although I haven't tried.

I'm actually about to commence another study which requires the use of this feature so will try to take a better look into it over the next few days.