Best Of
Re: Solid Validate
Hi Wisnuastaman,
When you import a .dxf (or a .dgn, .obj or the other 11 supported mesh formats) you get a pop-up window that gives you some options for clean-up and validation. The help section for mesh clean-up (and general importing help) is here: Meshes
After you import, if there are still issue with the mesh, Leapfrog will display them with icons on the mesh objects in the project tree. Picture below:
For more help on visualising errors in imported meshes, see this topic: Visualising Issues With Imported Meshes
If you have an open mesh, it is usually much easier to clean it up and fix it in the software that it was created.
Regards, John
Re: Convert a calculated variable to a alpha / category
Hi Justin,
Due to the nature of converting 'continuous data' to finite 'category data' a direct grouping has always needed that manual step. The standard method works for most scenarios but RL flagging has always been the biggest pain. As I also am not a fan of unnecessary manual entry, I've created a workflow to use numeric distance buffers and grouped meshes. I'll attach the doc here and hope it helps you get the output you need!
Cheers, Lee
LeeEvans
Re: SWCC curve under unsat condition
Hi @DivyanshRaunak, there are several ways to initialize the domain in a transient analysis. You can run a steady state analysis, draw a piezometric surface, or define a spatial function and then run your transient analysis.
In your case, you could initialize your domain for before both storms using any method, then run a transient analysis with a boundary condition that models two storms close together. Here you can see an example of a boundary condition for a single flood event, but you could easily make this boundary condition model two storms however many days apart you'd like.
Does that make sense? Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Re: Calculate a surface area of interest - Гадаргуугийн талбайг тооцох
This is great, I will update the post using the Extruded Meshes option. I missed this tool and thank you for your input!
Re: I can't seem to find Geology Model Extended Extents
Hi there!
We're investigating this issue and will update the course to include instructions to create the Geology Model Extended as soon as possible. In the meantime, feel free to use the starting project from the next course to continue working through this module - the screenshot below shows where the Geology Model Extended Extents can be found in the starting project. You can download the updated starting project here: https://files.seequent.com/training/Data/Geo/GeoFundamentals/Leapfrog%20Geo%20Fund_NumericModelling%20Course%20Data.zip
Re: Comment créer et finaliser une carte de résistivité
Hi Kouakou,
What software are you using to work with resistivity data? And which type of data?
Re: why I am getting higher FOS instead of getting lower value?
Hi @LaboniGupta, I apologize for the delay. One of the reasons you're seeing the factor of safety increase is because the piezometric surface is lower in the SEEP/W model than the piezometric surface model. If you change the SEEP/W model so that the piezometric surface follows the ground surface, the factor of safety decreases.
However, the SEEP/W model FOS is still higher than the piezometric surface model FOS. This is because when there is a downward flow regime, SLOPE/W calculates higher pore water pressures from piezometric surfaces than SEEP/W calculates. You can read more about this in the PDF I've attached. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
🎉 We love seeing how members are using our tools to support and inspire the next generation of geos
One of our Visible Geology users, Ayokunle, recently shared this thoughtful post after receiving a small thank you from the team for being one of our most active contributors:
🔗 Link to Post
It's always exciting to hear how the tools are being used in the classroom and beyond - and even better when we can show appreciation in fun ways.
Got ideas or feedback to help us improve Visible Geology? We'd love to hear them. And if you're doing something awesome with it - let us know. You might just get a surprise too 😉
Kenometer accuracy: Are your alpha angle measurements as reliable as you think?
Hi everyone:
If you're collecting structural data (e.g., alpha-beta-gamma) from orientated drillcore, check out this LinkedIn article on the uncertainty of alpha values measured with the popular Kenometer tool.
Maybe +/-5 degrees isn't significant in your project but orientated drillcore is expensive to collect.
Please share your thoughts.
Graham
Re: Most Efficient Method for Modeling Folds Given Only Trend & Plunge Lines?
Hi Ben,
This looks like an opportunity to use the fold interpolant tool in Leapfrog [Form Interpolants]. The amount of dip & strike data you have for the bedding/foliation is enough to adjust the structural trends of the interpolants, the same with the plunge direction arrows you have. Because your fold axes are fairly close to parallel, so they can share the same general structural trend.
I recommend having a look through the online training for Leapfrog's Structural Modelling Tools, specifically the section on structural surfaces [Catalogue | Seequent Learning Centre], the section on form interpolants [Catalogue | Seequent Learning Centre], and the section on structural trends [Catalogue | Seequent Learning Centre].
Have a go at that and get back to me if you need more help.
Thanks
Graham