I'd Value Your Input on Case Study Using Hydraflow Hydrographs

[driggins]

Hi All,

I'm looking for someone to independently verify some results from Hydraflow Hydrographs. I'm baffled as to the behavior of this tool and would appreciate your thoughts to help explain it.

The situation: the pond has a wet pond elevation at 491. Thus, storage of incoming hydrograph should begin at this elevation. In my original work with this data, I noticed that the model lacked contour information for stages 1 and 3. I added data for these two stages, which did provide more detail, but did not affect storage for the pond. In fact, it shouldn't change any of the results since stages 1 and 3 are below the wet pond elevation. However, the results were dramatically different when compared to the original data set. Why is this? Why would additional information, which should not impact storage, change the results in any way?

The Hydrograph files are attached. The "design" condition is "13010 revised pond 2-15-12.gpw" and the same data set with contour data below 491 removed is "20140624 What If Scenario...".

I'd value your thoughts on explaining the behavior of this tool. Perhaps this is a bug or maybe there's a rational explanation that I'm overlooking.

On a broader topic, does anyone have suggestions on how to get technical support for this tool?

Thanks,

[chris.bertschy]

We have had our hydrograph models randomly get confused between the last selected watershed computation point. It seems to have an indexing issue and will add the values from a previous flow computation to the most recently selected watershed to edit. If you do not catch this it will overwrite the data. Might be why your data is different. Cursor blinks erratically when hoovering over it as well. Basically the rule of thumb is to check all values used in the model twice... no make that 5 times.

Chris