<p>Looking at your cross-section file, there are some that need to be corrected. Have a look at the screenshot below. All your branches contain at least one cross-section that has its lowest elevation point at 0m. this needs to be corrected to be consistent with your other cross-sections.</p>
<p>As a result of the bottom cross-section being 0m, you’ll need to redo the Q/h relationship for the outflow cross-section. Looking at the ones above, this should be between 450 – 500 m (meters above sea level). Once you’ve corrected these, hopefully the model will run. <a href="https://i.sstatic.net/OPqkw.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/OPqkw.png" alt="cross section errors" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T13:10:17.773Z
I have managed to now change these cross sections. They were definitely not picking up the DEM because of how I inserted them so using the move option as you mentioned worked perfectly. I have rerun the simulation and now it runs without any errors or warning messages.

I have also managed to run the preprocessing in Mike-SHE now successfully
ecohydrol
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T13:30:05.890Z
Hi please write one long answer rather than 3!
Weiss
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T13:09:01.857Z
2022-07-25T13:09:01.857Z
ecohydrol
<p>I get the following error messages when running the hydrological model MIKE-SHE:</p>
<p>&quot;Cannot initialize MIKE-1D - Failed when solving for a steady state solution; water level being exceeded; Warning: Hyperthreading&quot;</p>
<p>I managed to get all my grid sizes to match the domain and finally got rid of the abnormal termination because of grid issues. In the pre-processing, it seems that all my other files were also fine i.e. see below from SimSpec and storing to Overland Data. However, when it gets to River Data I get an error in loading MIKE 1D d11… see below. I redid my MikeHydro with the same DEM as now in my MikeShe and I still get the same errors.</p>
<p>I would be extremely grateful for any assistance on this issues of initialising Mike 1D</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/7QSSn.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/7QSSn.png" alt="Screen grab of error" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T13:00:29.060Z
Advice given: Try running the MIKE HYDRO model on its own. That will help trying to figure out the error. Also check the log file (.txt file) in Windows Explorer folder that you have your model saved in. Doing both of these will assist in why you may be getting the error message in MIKE SHE.
ecohydrol
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T13:05:53.963Z
I had not recalculated the Q/h boundary so now that I did this, it seems to get past the beta error originally mentioned, but then I got some new errors about water level being exceeded on 9 grid points (see second message below). So, I checked, and it looked like these were the 9 cross sections that I inserted manually and only made 200 meters in comparison to all my others which were around 400 meters. So, I lengthened these cross sections with the extend tool. My simulation has now run. See message file below. I still get a warning about hyper threading. [![message file below](https://i.sta
ecohydrol
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T13:07:53.283Z
Sorry, I just realised that I did not recalculate the Q/h boundary after I extended the cross sections when I do this the simulation still runs but I get the following warning:

‘Q values in QH boundary not monotonically increasing’ ….. 

I think this might be due to the geometry of the cross sections. But I do not think I will run my mike she until I have sorted this out.
ecohydrol
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T13:51:57.517Z
Thanks Weiss, I'm busy exploring the capabilities of Earth Science Stack Exchange for our hydrological modelling community. We would like to consider using it to support our community of practice. Going forward we will be encouraging users and students to post their questions on this site where they will be answered, resulting in better efficiency and transparency, and supporting the global hydrological modelling community. However for now, we have some commonly asked Q&A's to get this started, and also some documented Q&A's. This is the latter.
ecohydrol
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T13:54:24.427Z
What I have added here is a real Q&A between two people, which as you can see, went through many rounds of questions and answers. I wanted to emulate that here. Are you suggesting that to do this better, I should write the original question, and all subsequent Q&A's as one long answer? Your advice would be helpful, as I would apply this to other posts.
ecohydrol
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T16:15:40.010Z
@ecohydrol typically here the goal is to keep it to one question and answer, and avoid evolving discussion.
So the advice I'd suggest for your example question is: your answer about "Advice given: Try running the MIKE HYDRO model on its own... also check the log file" would likely be a comment to the question as written instead of an answer, as it doesn't provide the solution only a method of investigating the problem.  Or could maybe wind up with a separate question about basic techniques to solve errors with the MIKE HYDRO.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T16:17:10.710Z
The user could use the results from that to slightly modify the Q with additional details. Or if the results completely change the direction of the Q (for instance a generic error message instead became a much more specific error indicating a complete logic rewrite was needed), or had a bunch of things it itself could be, only one of which is dived down, it might be better to then alter the original Q down to simple basic such as what could an error message like this might mean... then make a separate question more into the intricate details (could add links in each question to the other).
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T16:17:44.933Z
The initial asker could comment the "I had not recalculated the Q/h boundary so now that I did this, it seems to get past the beta error originally mentioned, but I have new problems on water level being exceeded on 9 grid points" on the A... which would include the link to the new question about that.  Then there a link to another question about the separate hyperthreading issue.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T16:20:33.627Z
It may seem a pain to separate out the questions like this... but in the long run it'll help more people with their problems.  Long complex investigations of very specific problems typically tend to both be less applicable to users, and less likely to be followed by a reader due to the complexity.  Separating each out can solve the one user's issue, and many others who may've not ran into the first issue, but have the second, or such.  Not all questions work here, and it can take some work to maintain the quality of questions... but I think it could be a great place for such answers.
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-25T16:32:00.410Z
Either way, answers shouldn't themselves be a chain or back and forth Q/A, nor really should the question keep being heavily revised. It's hard to follow. It was hard for me to understand what was going on with this question for a while.
While it's not a hugely common practice, migrating a Q/A solution over from other locations/conversation/etc can be a fair thing, have done so myself, and done well I believe can be a very useful problem solver for people using your code. Or if you guys decide SE isn't really flexible enough for your needs, another option may be [Gitter](http://gitter.im)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-07-26T19:27:22.753Z
Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/138045/discussion-between-ecohydrol-and-jeopardytempest).
ecohydrol
<hydrology><models>
Cannot initialize MIKE-1D - Failed when solving for a steady state solution; water level being exceeded; Warning: Hyperthreading
ecohydrol
# Cannot initialize MIKE-1D - Failed when solving for a steady state solution; water level being exceeded; Warning: Hyperthreading

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-07-25)

I get the following error messages when running the hydrological model MIKE-SHE:

"Cannot initialize MIKE-1D - Failed when solving for a steady state solution; water level being exceeded; Warning: Hyperthreading"

I managed to get all my grid sizes to match the domain and finally got rid of the abnormal termination because of grid issues. In the pre-processing, it seems that all my other files were also fine i.e. see below from SimSpec and storing to Overland Data. However, when it gets to River Data I get an error in loading MIKE 1D d11… see below. I redid my MikeHydro with the same DEM as now in my MikeShe and I still get the same errors.

I would be extremely grateful for any assistance on this issues of initialising Mike 1D

[![Screen grab of error](https://i.sstatic.net/7QSSn.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/7QSSn.png)

**Tags:** hydrology, models

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Advice given: Try running the MIKE HYDRO model on its own. That will help trying to figure out the error. Also check the log file (.txt file) in Windows Explorer folder that you have your model saved in. Doing both of these will assist in why you may be getting the error message in MIKE SHE.  
> **username_0**: I had not recalculated the Q/h boundary so now that I did this, it seems to get past the beta error originally mentioned, but then I got some new errors about water level being exceeded on 9 grid points (see second message below). So, I checked, and it looked like these were the 9 cross sections that I inserted manually and only made 200 meters in comparison to all my others which were around 400 meters. So, I lengthened these cross sections with the extend tool. My simulation has now run. See message file below. I still get a warning about hyper threading. [![message file below](https://i.sta  
> **username_0**: Sorry, I just realised that I did not recalculate the Q/h boundary after I extended the cross sections when I do this the simulation still runs but I get the following warning:  ‘Q values in QH boundary not monotonically increasing’ …..   I think this might be due to the geometry of the cross sections. But I do not think I will run my mike she until I have sorted this out.  
> **username_0**: Thanks username_2, I'm busy exploring the capabilities of Earth Science Stack Exchange for our hydrological modelling community. We would like to consider using it to support our community of practice. Going forward we will be encouraging users and students to post their questions on this site where they will be answered, resulting in better efficiency and transparency, and supporting the global hydrological modelling community. However for now, we have some commonly asked Q&A's to get this started, and also some documented Q&A's. This is the latter.  
> **username_0**: What I have added here is a real Q&A between two people, which as you can see, went through many rounds of questions and answers. I wanted to emulate that here. Are you suggesting that to do this better, I should write the original question, and all subsequent Q&A's as one long answer? Your advice would be helpful, as I would apply this to other posts.  
> **username_1**: @username_0 typically here the goal is to keep it to one question and answer, and avoid evolving discussion. So the advice I'd suggest for your example question is: your answer about "Advice given: Try running the MIKE HYDRO model on its own... also check the log file" would likely be a comment to the question as written instead of an answer, as it doesn't provide the solution only a method of investigating the problem.  Or could maybe wind up with a separate question about basic techniques to solve errors with the MIKE HYDRO.  
> **username_1**: The user could use the results from that to slightly modify the Q with additional details. Or if the results completely change the direction of the Q (for instance a generic error message instead became a much more specific error indicating a complete logic rewrite was needed), or had a bunch of things it itself could be, only one of which is dived down, it might be better to then alter the original Q down to simple basic such as what could an error message like this might mean... then make a separate question more into the intricate details (could add links in each question to the other).  
> **username_1**: The initial asker could comment the "I had not recalculated the Q/h boundary so now that I did this, it seems to get past the beta error originally mentioned, but I have new problems on water level being exceeded on 9 grid points" on the A... which would include the link to the new question about that.  Then there a link to another question about the separate hyperthreading issue.  
> **username_1**: It may seem a pain to separate out the questions like this... but in the long run it'll help more people with their problems.  Long complex investigations of very specific problems typically tend to both be less applicable to users, and less likely to be followed by a reader due to the complexity.  Separating each out can solve the one user's issue, and many others who may've not ran into the first issue, but have the second, or such.  Not all questions work here, and it can take some work to maintain the quality of questions... but I think it could be a great place for such answers.  
> **username_1**: Either way, answers shouldn't themselves be a chain or back and forth Q/A, nor really should the question keep being heavily revised. It's hard to follow. It was hard for me to understand what was going on with this question for a while. While it's not a hugely common practice, migrating a Q/A solution over from other locations/conversation/etc can be a fair thing, have done so myself, and done well I believe can be a very useful problem solver for people using your code. Or if you guys decide SE isn't really flexible enough for your needs, another option may be [Gitter](http://gitter.im)  
> **username_0**: Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/138045/discussion-between-username_0-and-username_1).  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_0 on 2022-07-25. Score: 1

Looking at your cross-section file, there are some that need to be corrected. Have a look at the screenshot below. All your branches contain at least one cross-section that has its lowest elevation point at 0m. this needs to be corrected to be consistent with your other cross-sections.

As a result of the bottom cross-section being 0m, you’ll need to redo the Q/h relationship for the outflow cross-section. Looking at the ones above, this should be between 450 – 500 m (meters above sea level). Once you’ve corrected these, hopefully the model will run. [![cross section errors](https://i.sstatic.net/OPqkw.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/OPqkw.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I have managed to now change these cross sections. They were definitely not picking up the DEM because of how I inserted them so using the move option as you mentioned worked perfectly. I have rerun the simulation and now it runs without any errors or warning messages.  I have also managed to run the preprocessing in Mike-SHE now successfully  
> **username_2**: Hi please write one long answer rather than 3!  

---

