nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

流域区分 - 複数のカルバート

AliMcLeod

ArcGIS Pro 2.6

皆さんこんにちは。私は流域の区分で行き詰まっています。archydro toolboxをダウンロードしており、できるだけspatial analystの代わりに使用しています。約15マイルの道路沿いに約40のカルバートがあり、それらはDEMに「焼き込み」されています。カルバートはストリームリンクにスナップしており、すべてのストリームが道路を横断しているか、カルバートの近くにあることを確認した上でストリームリンク（セル数は1500に設定）を作成しました。集水域、隣接集水域、排水線、および排水点はすべて正しいようです。

Point Delineatorを使用すると、単一のカルバートポイントを選択し、小さなサブ流域（集水域ポリゴンよりもさらに小さい）を区分します。Watershed Delineationを使用すると、「droping id」から「processed 0 features」、「final selection」、「sampling」、「100%」へと繰り返し変化し続けます。処理は完了せず、3時間以上実行しても結果が出ません。

誰か、ほとんどの集水域を含む全体の流域、少なくとも主要なストリームを取得するための回避策をご存知でしょうか？新しいストリームリンク用により大きなセルサイズを定義し、そのストリームから流域を区分する必要がありますか？すべての可能な流れがカルバートに入ることを確認したいだけであり、大きすぎるストリームラインを作成して潜在的な領域を制限したくありません。

タグ付けされた投稿をもっと見る

Water Resources

Arc Hydro

Accepted answers

All comments

AliMcLeod

After digging even deeper into the data, I may have discovered the problem. For some reason, my stream and stream links are not connecting the paths together- and when I turn on the drainage line layer- that feature class is just line data of these two rasters overlapping.

So how do i get one solid stream network to appear, and not have the mainstream itself become disconnected? (Str was a cell size of 500, Str2 was 1000, Str3 was 1200, and Str4 was 1500; StrLnk was created from Str4)

AliMcLeod

in Pro the setup is slightly different....

but-- This is the zoomed out:

this is the zoomed in DEM:

So, this is why I am at an utter loss and confusion! I feel like all the steps I am taking SHOULD yield results. Yet, for some reason- I am coming up empty handed. And like you said earlier, if I am getting correct adjoint catchments, then the data is there and pulling appropriately.

The only issue I see here is the culverts- that the points themselves are causing a problem If the DEM is not a problem, the streams are not a problem, the catchments are not a problem. It has to be the culvert points. Snapped to the streams initially, or not and done during the watershed delineation, same lack of results.

MarkBoucher

I'm still in ArcMap, not Pro. With either version you should be able to symbolize the color ramp on the DEM to view the statistics "From Current Display Extent" (see first image). This allows you to see the subtle differences in the DEM no matter what your zoom level.

The second image below is a portion of our County DEM with this setting. The third image is a zoom in on what looks flat. The color ramp adjusts for the the data in that view revealing more detail.

You should be able to study parts of your DEM to tell if burning the streams is needed, especially where you are getting the small watersheds.

Of course, make sure the right rasters are being used by the delineation tool.

Portion of our County DEM

Zoomed in on the red square.

AliMcLeod

This is my 3m DEM--- but as you can see the northern portion of it is pretty flat. Mostly just creeks/wetlands with no major tributaries.

MarkBoucher

If the DEM has resolution to define the streams, you wouldn't have to burn the streams into the DEM. However, if the streams are not well defined by the DEM (the cell size is large enough to "bridge" the stream and on a color ramp of the DEM [or hillshade of the DEM] the streams are not clearly visible), you may need to burn in the streams.

AliMcLeod

Hi Mark--- yes that was the firs step after burning the DEM with the culverts.

Are you suggesting that I need to additionally burn the streams into the DEM as well?

MarkBoucher

Have you filled sinks? If not, that would be the step you need to do after burning streams and before flow direction.

会話に参加する

サインインしたメンバーは投稿、更新のフォローなどができます。初めてですか？無料アカウントを登録してください。

クイックリンク

Community Help
Find useful guides, FAQs, and documents to help you navigate and make the most of Esri Community.