Welcome to the RAS Solution Forums HEC-RAS Help GeomPreprocessor.exe has stopped working

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #5641
    Scott La Vanne
    Participant

    I’m performing an unsteady flow simulation in HEC-RAS 4.1.0. When I run the geometry preprocessor, the progress bar goes all the way to the end and appears to finish. Then before the Unsteady Flow Simulation begins I get the error, “GeomPreprocessor.exe has stopped working”. Nothing proceeds from this point until I click “Stop”. Has anyone encountered this error before? Plugging the error message into Google yields less than two pages of results, none of which have been helpful.

    I created the geometry using HEC-GeoRas then modified the more complicated elements within HEC-RAS.

    Things I’ve already tried:
    – Restarting the computer
    – Filtering the Cross Sections
    – changing universal HTAB parameters
    – exporting the geometry data and reimporting into an entirely new project file.

    The only option left I can think of is starting over with rebuilding the geometry from scratch and hope I don’t get the error again. I’ve already invested a lot of time into the geometry so I’d obviously like to avoid that.

    Thanks for any insight you might provide!

    #9017
    Scott La Vanne
    Participant

    For anyone else who may come along later with the same error this is what I have learned.

    1. the geometry worked in a steady state simulation so I suspected that a geometric element that is only active during unsteady simulations was to blame.

    2. I isolated the problem element to a single lateral structure that connected two parallel reaches. Deleting the structure allowed the unsteady simulation to run. Despite many attempts to revise the structure and channel geometry I could not get the simulation to run with the structure present. There are multiple other very similar lateral structures present in the model that do not create this problem. I don’t know what made this structure unique.

    I eventually decided that the structure wasn’t critical to the results I was interested in, and not worth investigating further. If anyone comes along with further insight I’d still be interested to hear your thoughts.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.